When I was a very young kid, Mum and I were in the city (Melbourne) for one of - if not the - the earliest Viêt Nàm war protests. It was incredibly loud - not very physically active, just people slowly walking and chanting, but the noise and one other aspect overwhelmed and terrified me. I wound up hiding behind Mum's legs - one of the protestors tried to reassure me, but I was having none of it, and Mum asked her to move on. (I've occasionally recalled that when former protestors have claimed they were welcomed by all - they weren't.)
The other aspect I mentioned was what I, in my early primary school years, perceived as anger.
I think that's something which people of passion need to keep in mind: that their passion can be perceived as anger by others, and thus feel threatening, even though there may be no intention of physical harm. In the case of the protests at a mining conference this week in my home city, protestors shouting at not just delegates but innocent people going past is likely, rightly or wrongly, to be perceived as threatening. (If the police inferences of protestors being physically violent are true, I would expect them to be able to produce evidence - or do they no longer film people at protests?)
In a domestic violence situation, words and the way they are spoken are accepted as being a form of violence (something a disgraced union leader demonstrated a few weeks ago, and well called out by Rosie Batty), but that seems to be forgotten in the passion of a protest - and we are considering a protest about the extinction of human and much other life.
When trying to justify the feelings of being threatened, many people try to find physical acts to justify their feelings, but often it is just a human reaction to being on the receiving end of passion that has been perceived as human aggression (one of our greatest fears, according to Paul
K Chappell). It just seems embarrassing to say "they were making scary noises", even though that may be the truth. (The Australian soldiers facing a protest in Afghanistan, on the other hand, that is being investigated, were facing genuine physical threats.)
This, in addition to the fundamental threat to a possibly cherished perception, value, or edifice (of individuals, groups, or society) can lead to excessive responses on the part of authorities and others.
When reading about protests, I've often thought of the view attributed to Gandhi (in the film, at any rate) that the role of a civil protestor is to provoke a reaction. I don't know how disciplined the protestors organising these protests are (having heard one of them interviewed, I am inclined to consider they are well-informed, and likely to be organised and probably disciplined), but I do know Gandhi acted to stop or calm protests when things got out of hand - and he was dealing with situations where police had been killed by protestors, in one instance, and various other forms of violence.
Mt opinion is that the protestors are being effective protestors, mostly physically peaceful, but forceful - noisily so, and in a way that is being perceived as threatening on a primitive, subconscious level by those around them. That leads to any wrongdoing by the protestors to be latched on to and magnified.
On the other sides - and yes, there are multiple others: police and attendees, I'll begin with the police. (There is also the role of the neoliberal denialist dinosaurs in the Federal government, but I consider them beyond the pale.)
The police are trained, but they're trained by people who I suspect are conservative, and maybe don't know much about human emotion (although that has slowly been changing for the better in recent years). But they're also trained from the perspective of power, and to ensure that they are not overwhelmed or lose control of a situation - and I think most people would want that when police are dealing with violent criminals, police also need to understand when to change tactics, when situation are fundamentally different.
Many people tend to think police are there to enforce laws, but they're actually charged with enforcing law and order, and it is the attraction to order that (a) draws some conservative personalities, and (b) makes for a bad copper (an example of this is the officer who described peaceful but effectively disruptive Extinction Rebellion protestors a few months ago as "violent" when there was no such thing).
In the case of the current protests, the police have been using capsicum spray. I'm an asthmatic, so that is potentially fatal to me, but for many people, the physical harm done by capsicum spray probably passes quicker than having bones broken or being bruised by a baton - and it definitely passes quicker than being shot (thinking back to what happened to those protesting for India's independence). Nevertheless, using capsicum spray indiscriminately, or against journalists, is not acceptable.
The police have also been using techniques, such as swarming onto people on the ground to stop them moving, which are aimed at arresting potentially violent people in the safest way possible.
Potentially.
I think the evidence is that the police have certainly felt threatened by the protestors in this instance - and again, that threat is probably from the display of raw human emotion, rather than any overt physical act, but that can be threatening, as is illustrated by the view of such behaviour in a domestic violence situation. Their responses have, at times, been concerning - using horses is an inherently dangerous act for all involved, including the horses, and I don't doubt that the woman reported to have two broken legs will successfully sue police.
Nevertheless, a lot of their actions have been reasonable (the construction barriers - water filled plastic - were a good idea: it would have been good to see those deployed earlier, and that will provably be the case in the future).
What has not been reasonable is the anger I saw on one officer's face as he wielded his baton against protestors (his colleagues were not resorting to using batons), anger that shows he has been overcome by working under the situation of threat, despite his training, and a similar incident where a police member very forcefully (I think it qualifies as "violently") pushed a protestor who had probably been giving lip. (I've also seen one officer calming and reassuring his colleagues, keeping them under control.)
Now, I consider that we expect too much of police. I would like to see frontline police managed the way frontline soldiers are - with time rotated out of the "firing line" of crime and human suffering and occasional protests, and given far more psychological support (which would probably be resisted by the toxic masculinity and emotion-denying conservative elements that still reside in pockets of the police force). I have admired the incredible restraint shown by police and similar forces - as exemplified by the restraint that US soldiers in Iraq eventually learned to use (in response to being filmed on mobile phones), or by the soldiers in early Viêt Nàm war protests who held their ground despite women unzipping their flies - which, make no bones about it, is sexual assault (being in a protest does not justify all acts any more than wearing a blue uniform automatically reassures members of the public).
Notwithstanding that, the reality of the modern world is that all people, including police are under extreme levels of surveillance and criticism, and actions in one situation can have effects elsewhere.
The film of the officer showing anger on his face is likely to cause some people to have concerns about calling on the police, although some conservative people may consider it "good".
In this sort of situation, it behoves police to remember that they are acting not just to enforce order in this situation, but they are also advertising their conduct to all of society, and most people are probably less conservative than they are. Closing ranks at this time is understandable, but may not be the best long term response. I'll be interested to see how the discussion on conduct goes next week, after the conference has ended.
It is worth noting that one of the ways to calm someone who is angry is to let them have their say. I recall film from some years ago of an umpire running backwards as he was followed by a player who was having an absolute rant: it worked, the player got it out of his system, and the umpire was quite rightly praised later. This is a technique that isn't always appropriate, and it may not be a cure, but letting protestors make a lot of noise is fundamental, in my opinion.
It equally behoves the protestors to keep the same in mind, and this is where we get to the third group involved: the mining profession, and those responsible for the current climate crisis. As a group, they have been slow to respond - remember my earlier comments about cherished views, but they are also correct about people not appreciating things like the minerals that make mobile phones possible (one of the many reasons my personal mobile phone is not a so-called "smart" phone). Those counter-points are true, but they do not outweigh the seriousness of the situation in - we really are in a crisis.
So how do you get someone to change their mind about what they've cherished probably most of their life?
You have to get their attention first, and that is what these protestors have certainly done. However, you then have to change their minds, and at that point it is important to remember Gandhi's admonition "Do you fight to changes things, or to punish?"
Changing people away from cherished positions takes sustained effort, by people who those you are trying to change consider have credibility - and there are some people trying to do that from within at the conference. The effort, however, needs to go on well beyond a three day conference, and that is where I have concerns: who is going to do that? Who is going to engage with mining companies, in a long, persistent campaign, in a way aimed at trying to change their minds, after all this metaphorical "fire and fury" is gone?
The protestors - and many others - are genuinely feeling desperately afraid and powerless: anyone prepared to get a persistent email conversation underway with those whose minds need to be changed? Of course, that question equally applies to the mining industry: anyone prepared to engage in a long term dialogue?
PS - since writing the above, I have seen more footage showing violence by the police, and my concerns about their response have grown
Thursday 31 October 2019
Sunday 27 October 2019
Sanctions and war
I've come across some interesting reading lately.
Firstly, a cautionary article pointing out that "War is Not Over", at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-10-15/war-not-over. The author's view that the work of people like Steven Pinker ("The Better Angels of Our Nature") is being interpreted by some people to assume that war and violence are no longer problems is news to me (and, I think, everyone else on the planet), but he does make some excellent points about the fragility of some of the statistics being used to assess levels of violence.
It is well worth a read.
The other reading is a report, authored by Hilary Mossberg and published by "The Sentry" - at https://cdn.thesentry.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SanctionsEffectiveness_TheSentry_Oct2019-web.pdf (press release at https://thesentry.org/reports/beyond-carrots-better-sticks/) - about ways to improve sanctions.
This is a well laid out, objective, and well-researched document, in my opinion, and also well worth a read. It's fairly long, at 76 pages, but does contain a stack of information. This is the sort of report that I will refer to whenever I next write to a politician about sanctions.
One caution I would make is that I'm not sure all the possible actions to improve sanctions seem to be mentioned in the conclusions section - in particular, I'm not sure that the recommendation to "improve messaging" adequately covers what I read in the body of the report on this aspect.
Also, please note that I need to finish reading the case studies.
Firstly, a cautionary article pointing out that "War is Not Over", at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-10-15/war-not-over. The author's view that the work of people like Steven Pinker ("The Better Angels of Our Nature") is being interpreted by some people to assume that war and violence are no longer problems is news to me (and, I think, everyone else on the planet), but he does make some excellent points about the fragility of some of the statistics being used to assess levels of violence.
It is well worth a read.
The other reading is a report, authored by Hilary Mossberg and published by "The Sentry" - at https://cdn.thesentry.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SanctionsEffectiveness_TheSentry_Oct2019-web.pdf (press release at https://thesentry.org/reports/beyond-carrots-better-sticks/) - about ways to improve sanctions.
This is a well laid out, objective, and well-researched document, in my opinion, and also well worth a read. It's fairly long, at 76 pages, but does contain a stack of information. This is the sort of report that I will refer to whenever I next write to a politician about sanctions.
One caution I would make is that I'm not sure all the possible actions to improve sanctions seem to be mentioned in the conclusions section - in particular, I'm not sure that the recommendation to "improve messaging" adequately covers what I read in the body of the report on this aspect.
Also, please note that I need to finish reading the case studies.
Overcoming health challenges so as to make a positive contribution to the world
In my 20s, I was quite fit - largely so I could be effective at
competitive sailing. In my early 40s, I achieved a reasonable level of
fitness so I could compete in the Sydney 2002 Gay Games. However, since
then, I've had a few health problems - collapsing disks, arthritis,
various physical injuries that doctors were glib about, etc, and my
health has deteriorated.
That hasn't been helped by getting older, by having work and other demands (the stress has actually been quite debilitating), and the occasional problem from my diabetes (which I think i had for a fair few years before I was officially diagnosed - which was when I was training for the Gay Games and running 7 km each day plus doing 3 two hour weight and flexibility sessions each week, plus half a day sailing training each week as well).
I don't have CFS (I have known people who did, and it is far more than just being tired), but I do use the "spoons of energy" concept from CFS to help manage my daily life. (Of all the other self care techniques, alternate nostril breathing exercises are actually the most effective for me - they boost my ability to cope with stress, and enable me to start doing other things like exercise, etc.)
I think my biggest problem is actually wanting to do more.
On that, I recently re-watched the film "Darkest Hour": I know Churchill had problems with depression, but then I started thinking of other major people in world politics who had overcome problems to make a major contribution - obviously Franklin D Roosevelt, who was largely confined to a wheelchair, and John F Kennedy, who had a series of health problems, but also other people who were less well known but also significant - people like Robert A. Lovett, who was one the people written about in the book "The Wise Men" and who used to refer to "his glass insides".
In my nation, we had John Curtain, who ultimately died of heart problems.
With the exception of FDR, most of these people's problems were not immediately obvious. Others do have significant issues to manage and still manage to make a major contribution - Senator Jordan Steele-John is an obvious example.
However, while I have great respect and admiration for Senator Steele-John and the campaigns for better treatment of people who are differently abled, given that most of my health issues are not immediately obvious (although the consequences often lead people to make stupid, wrong and hurtful assumptions), I personally can more strongly relate to people like Lovett.
Those are the people who I think: well, if they could do it despite most people not knowing what they were struggling with, then so can I.
That hasn't been helped by getting older, by having work and other demands (the stress has actually been quite debilitating), and the occasional problem from my diabetes (which I think i had for a fair few years before I was officially diagnosed - which was when I was training for the Gay Games and running 7 km each day plus doing 3 two hour weight and flexibility sessions each week, plus half a day sailing training each week as well).
I don't have CFS (I have known people who did, and it is far more than just being tired), but I do use the "spoons of energy" concept from CFS to help manage my daily life. (Of all the other self care techniques, alternate nostril breathing exercises are actually the most effective for me - they boost my ability to cope with stress, and enable me to start doing other things like exercise, etc.)
I think my biggest problem is actually wanting to do more.
On that, I recently re-watched the film "Darkest Hour": I know Churchill had problems with depression, but then I started thinking of other major people in world politics who had overcome problems to make a major contribution - obviously Franklin D Roosevelt, who was largely confined to a wheelchair, and John F Kennedy, who had a series of health problems, but also other people who were less well known but also significant - people like Robert A. Lovett, who was one the people written about in the book "The Wise Men" and who used to refer to "his glass insides".
In my nation, we had John Curtain, who ultimately died of heart problems.
With the exception of FDR, most of these people's problems were not immediately obvious. Others do have significant issues to manage and still manage to make a major contribution - Senator Jordan Steele-John is an obvious example.
However, while I have great respect and admiration for Senator Steele-John and the campaigns for better treatment of people who are differently abled, given that most of my health issues are not immediately obvious (although the consequences often lead people to make stupid, wrong and hurtful assumptions), I personally can more strongly relate to people like Lovett.
Those are the people who I think: well, if they could do it despite most people not knowing what they were struggling with, then so can I.
A "hierarchy of needs" for nations
In 1943, the psychologist Abraham Maslow proposed a "Hierarchy of Needs", in the context of "human motivation".
This approach posited that there were fundamental physiological needs (such as food, water, and shelter) which needed to be met first, after which other needs (described as "safety", then "love / belonging" in the above-referenced Wikipedia article) which must be met, before one can move on to meeting one's need for self esteem, and then the final step of being "self actualising" - to, to pinch a phrase, be all one can be.
It's a concept that has become quite popular, and I consider it has consider merit, although I think the order above physiological and safety needs may vary - and Maslow apparently also understood the variation, as did others, some of whom also considered changes were needed to the hierarchy. As an example, Paul K Chappell writes about variations to the Hierarchy of Needs in "The Cosmic Ocean" (pp. 376 - 386; Prospecta Press, Westport, ISBN 978-1-63226-009-3, e-book ISBN 978-1-63226-010-3, Amazon [e-book] ), eventually concluding that physical and spiritual (purpose and meaning) needs exist in parallel.
I consider that, for humans, the principle that some needs are relatively fundamental, and that others are generally met after those more basic needs have been met, is reasonably correct. There are variations to the order, and the variations depend not only on the individual, but also where the individual is at in their life, so it is a kaleidoscope of complex, changing, and interconnected aspects.
I am also going to propose that nations also have a kaleidoscope of needs - but that those aren't the "needs" set out by legal expectations around sovereignty, nor the pronouncements of political elites, both of which have been overthrown by war (i.e., invasions) and/or revolution.
No, I'm going to approach this from the point of view of the nation being, firstly and foremost, a set of people, with location and other matters (some being those political matters I alluded to) in common, including a sense of identity.
My apologies for being brief on this. As always, my time and energy are limited (and our cat is demonstrating the cat hierarchy of his need for pats outweighs everything else ☺ ).
So . . . what is the most basic need?
I'm going to suggest that it is the same as for individuals: basic physical needs, with a fair bit of overlap.
If your citizens don't have adequate food, water, shelter, etc, there is a good chance they will rebel (whether successfully or not is irrelevant for this exercise) or they will be unable to create an economy that will enable the nation to exist in any reasonably independent way - and they certainly would be neither inclined nor probably capable of physically defending the borders of said nation, so one of the first legal definitions of a nation (able to defend its borders - which is a bit of a moot definition in the era of superpowers) also won't be met.
This also touches on the issue of human rights, as that field points out that the various generations of rights (first generation being civil and political rights, then we get into social rights, including environmental, cultural, and aspirational) are interconnected: you cannot have a properly functioning economy without freedom (otherwise it is more or less despotic to some degree, with people being serf-like to some extent).
In my opinion, basic forms of social security rightfully belong to this level, although it will need an economy and functioning governance systems to provide it. Nevertheless, being able to ensure people do not starve to death on the streets is a key part of this
For the next level, I'm going to propose education and access to accurate information.
Education and literacy are crucial to lifting people out of poverty, and here, in the industrialised West, we have become so used to nearly ubiquitous literacy that we taken it for granted, much as a fish takes water for granted. Yet it is so vital, it must be acknowledged.
I also include numeracy in this, and a free and independent media, as access to trustworthy information about the government and what is happening is vital to enable people to live their lives as well as they can, and for creating that sense of identity I referred to above (the link I gave is worth reading: it emphasises that sense of identity and, perhaps strangely, law abiding behaviour, as being crucial in being a citizen).
Third: security - of borders (in the sense of the definition of sovereignty - being able to defend one's borders against aggressors, not in the twisted Home Affairs Minister Dutton sense of unfair treatment of asylum seekers), against crime (so an effective police force and criminal justice system, free of corruption and bias, and independent of rulers, are needed), against corruption of elites and similar iniquities (including discrimination), and against lifestyle vicissitudes such as unemployment and health problems, including the various forms of disability. Without this set of matters being met, there will be no economy (corruption kills that off - just look at what happened in Uganda under Idi Amin, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, and in the DR Congo under a succession of people), let alone a defence against invasion. Furthermore, without the more advanced form of social security and justice I am referring to (including no-fault divorce, and bans against discrimination),this nation would simply have the superficial and unstable façade of stability that many western nations had in the 1950s, where problems were bottled up and hidden behind front doors, leaving them free to do untold damage to the nation and its peoples.
No, security and at least basic fairness and equity are essential at this level.
Fourth comes freedom (subject to some limits to allow the nation to function as a nation), democracy (see also here), and governance, which goes hand in hand with have a sense of value (and perhaps equality?) as a citizen. There is a lot more I will write on this in coming months as I finish and review some of the books I am currently reading (particularly on political philosophy), so all I will write for now is that trying to create a stable democracy in a situation of instability (e.g., being invaded by another nation) or widespread problems (such as various forms of oppression) can be difficult. (Moving to democracy is often a cure for such oppression, however, as demonstrated in South Africa at the end of apartheid [see also here].)
Fifth is the "infrastructure of the nation". Whilst some of this is covered by governance (which provides the infrastructure of democracy) and freedom (for which the courts and free press are the infrastructure), there is more infrastructure to be considered for nation building. This used to be physical (roads and railways, and, a few centuries ago, market places), but now also includes electronic infrastructure (the Internet is now crucial), and economic matters. I sum this item up as: "the ability to give our children a better life than ours".
Next, we come to the equivalent of the individual's notion of "self esteem", or what Mr Chappell refers to as meaning and purpose. For this article, I am going to propose that this is beneficial impact on other nations, which may impart a sense of what I would hope people view as nobleness, but suspect they will term "greatness" (SIGH).
The qualification "beneficial" is vital, as many wars have been fought with other nations to distract a nation's people from internal problems, and other wars of conquest are for an unhealthy version of "greatness" that hides internal problems (including an underperforming economy).
This level would include humanitarian aid to other nations, including, in particular, capacity building, but such aid is often necessary at the level of ensuring one's own security - stop a nation "failing", and you may well prevent a major need for humanitarian aid; help ensure fairness and maybe even democracy, and you may prevent a refugee problem (such as those who fled from behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War), and constructively provide a secure and fair form of governance, and you may prevent a revolution (like that of Iran in 1979) that exports violence, possibly even to your shores.
Finally, is there an equivalent for nations of what self actualisation is for the individual?
I would suggest that, yes, there is, and it is having a long lasting and beneficial impact on the community of nations - something like having a key role in establishing something like democracy (the proto-democracies of Mesopotamia, India, and Sparta, and then Athens), or the United Nations (I am thinking of the US under FDR for this one), or something similar (and I cannot think of a third example . . . ).
OK, so if I put that into a diagram, as is done for Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the end result is as follows:
I'm already unhappy with quite a few aspects of this (I would like to write more about legitimacy and its loss through failure of R2P, for instance), but it will do for a start. I suspect I could eventually expand this into a small book - if I get the time and energy ☺
This approach posited that there were fundamental physiological needs (such as food, water, and shelter) which needed to be met first, after which other needs (described as "safety", then "love / belonging" in the above-referenced Wikipedia article) which must be met, before one can move on to meeting one's need for self esteem, and then the final step of being "self actualising" - to, to pinch a phrase, be all one can be.
It's a concept that has become quite popular, and I consider it has consider merit, although I think the order above physiological and safety needs may vary - and Maslow apparently also understood the variation, as did others, some of whom also considered changes were needed to the hierarchy. As an example, Paul K Chappell writes about variations to the Hierarchy of Needs in "The Cosmic Ocean" (pp. 376 - 386; Prospecta Press, Westport, ISBN 978-1-63226-009-3, e-book ISBN 978-1-63226-010-3, Amazon [e-book] ), eventually concluding that physical and spiritual (purpose and meaning) needs exist in parallel.
I consider that, for humans, the principle that some needs are relatively fundamental, and that others are generally met after those more basic needs have been met, is reasonably correct. There are variations to the order, and the variations depend not only on the individual, but also where the individual is at in their life, so it is a kaleidoscope of complex, changing, and interconnected aspects.
I am also going to propose that nations also have a kaleidoscope of needs - but that those aren't the "needs" set out by legal expectations around sovereignty, nor the pronouncements of political elites, both of which have been overthrown by war (i.e., invasions) and/or revolution.
No, I'm going to approach this from the point of view of the nation being, firstly and foremost, a set of people, with location and other matters (some being those political matters I alluded to) in common, including a sense of identity.
My apologies for being brief on this. As always, my time and energy are limited (and our cat is demonstrating the cat hierarchy of his need for pats outweighs everything else ☺ ).
So . . . what is the most basic need?
I'm going to suggest that it is the same as for individuals: basic physical needs, with a fair bit of overlap.
If your citizens don't have adequate food, water, shelter, etc, there is a good chance they will rebel (whether successfully or not is irrelevant for this exercise) or they will be unable to create an economy that will enable the nation to exist in any reasonably independent way - and they certainly would be neither inclined nor probably capable of physically defending the borders of said nation, so one of the first legal definitions of a nation (able to defend its borders - which is a bit of a moot definition in the era of superpowers) also won't be met.
This also touches on the issue of human rights, as that field points out that the various generations of rights (first generation being civil and political rights, then we get into social rights, including environmental, cultural, and aspirational) are interconnected: you cannot have a properly functioning economy without freedom (otherwise it is more or less despotic to some degree, with people being serf-like to some extent).
In my opinion, basic forms of social security rightfully belong to this level, although it will need an economy and functioning governance systems to provide it. Nevertheless, being able to ensure people do not starve to death on the streets is a key part of this
For the next level, I'm going to propose education and access to accurate information.
Education and literacy are crucial to lifting people out of poverty, and here, in the industrialised West, we have become so used to nearly ubiquitous literacy that we taken it for granted, much as a fish takes water for granted. Yet it is so vital, it must be acknowledged.
I also include numeracy in this, and a free and independent media, as access to trustworthy information about the government and what is happening is vital to enable people to live their lives as well as they can, and for creating that sense of identity I referred to above (the link I gave is worth reading: it emphasises that sense of identity and, perhaps strangely, law abiding behaviour, as being crucial in being a citizen).
Third: security - of borders (in the sense of the definition of sovereignty - being able to defend one's borders against aggressors, not in the twisted Home Affairs Minister Dutton sense of unfair treatment of asylum seekers), against crime (so an effective police force and criminal justice system, free of corruption and bias, and independent of rulers, are needed), against corruption of elites and similar iniquities (including discrimination), and against lifestyle vicissitudes such as unemployment and health problems, including the various forms of disability. Without this set of matters being met, there will be no economy (corruption kills that off - just look at what happened in Uganda under Idi Amin, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, and in the DR Congo under a succession of people), let alone a defence against invasion. Furthermore, without the more advanced form of social security and justice I am referring to (including no-fault divorce, and bans against discrimination),this nation would simply have the superficial and unstable façade of stability that many western nations had in the 1950s, where problems were bottled up and hidden behind front doors, leaving them free to do untold damage to the nation and its peoples.
No, security and at least basic fairness and equity are essential at this level.
Fourth comes freedom (subject to some limits to allow the nation to function as a nation), democracy (see also here), and governance, which goes hand in hand with have a sense of value (and perhaps equality?) as a citizen. There is a lot more I will write on this in coming months as I finish and review some of the books I am currently reading (particularly on political philosophy), so all I will write for now is that trying to create a stable democracy in a situation of instability (e.g., being invaded by another nation) or widespread problems (such as various forms of oppression) can be difficult. (Moving to democracy is often a cure for such oppression, however, as demonstrated in South Africa at the end of apartheid [see also here].)
Fifth is the "infrastructure of the nation". Whilst some of this is covered by governance (which provides the infrastructure of democracy) and freedom (for which the courts and free press are the infrastructure), there is more infrastructure to be considered for nation building. This used to be physical (roads and railways, and, a few centuries ago, market places), but now also includes electronic infrastructure (the Internet is now crucial), and economic matters. I sum this item up as: "the ability to give our children a better life than ours".
Next, we come to the equivalent of the individual's notion of "self esteem", or what Mr Chappell refers to as meaning and purpose. For this article, I am going to propose that this is beneficial impact on other nations, which may impart a sense of what I would hope people view as nobleness, but suspect they will term "greatness" (SIGH).
The qualification "beneficial" is vital, as many wars have been fought with other nations to distract a nation's people from internal problems, and other wars of conquest are for an unhealthy version of "greatness" that hides internal problems (including an underperforming economy).
This level would include humanitarian aid to other nations, including, in particular, capacity building, but such aid is often necessary at the level of ensuring one's own security - stop a nation "failing", and you may well prevent a major need for humanitarian aid; help ensure fairness and maybe even democracy, and you may prevent a refugee problem (such as those who fled from behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War), and constructively provide a secure and fair form of governance, and you may prevent a revolution (like that of Iran in 1979) that exports violence, possibly even to your shores.
Finally, is there an equivalent for nations of what self actualisation is for the individual?
I would suggest that, yes, there is, and it is having a long lasting and beneficial impact on the community of nations - something like having a key role in establishing something like democracy (the proto-democracies of Mesopotamia, India, and Sparta, and then Athens), or the United Nations (I am thinking of the US under FDR for this one), or something similar (and I cannot think of a third example . . . ).
OK, so if I put that into a diagram, as is done for Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the end result is as follows:
I'm already unhappy with quite a few aspects of this (I would like to write more about legitimacy and its loss through failure of R2P, for instance), but it will do for a start. I suspect I could eventually expand this into a small book - if I get the time and energy ☺
Friday 18 October 2019
A brief commentary on some news items
My time is a bit limited, so, much as I would love to write properly researched articles on the following topics, I can't.
Firstly, the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has published a commentary and supporting data on the election of nations which are human rights abusers (notably, Venezuela) to the UN General Assembly's Human Rights Council. These publications are clear, concise and accurate: I agree with their thrust, and I am pleased that specific recommendations have been made.
My main problem with the commentary is that I am having trouble finding a copy of "the Irish Principles" that it refers to. I was eventually able to track down a copy from an interesting analysis of the principles that I found first. (Unfortunately, informal names don't appear in official designations - SIGH )
I also consider that one of the fundamental problems with the HRC is that it is too large (47 nations, out of a membership of 193 nations, and election by nations, rather than human rights experts - or at least preliminary screening by human rights experts) - one of the reasons that some of these human rights abusing nations get on to the Council is that they are needed to meet the combined effects of quotas on representation from regions and rotation of membership: when there are only a few nations from a region, and everyone else has had a turn at membership of the HRC, it winds up being politically awkward to reject an abusive nation - they should be rejected, but no-one has had the integrity to do so thus far (except, I think, for Libya).
Next, a disturbing failure to apprehend a sanctioned war criminal which resulted in him being able to gamble at a casino in my home city - see here - losing six million dollars would surely have made him noticed? This is a staggering failure of (a) border controls (are we back to having a Border Control Farce?), and (b) operation of the casino concerned - and this incident has been raised as other concerns are been alleged.
I hope that this does not represent the same sort of disdain and contempt for the international rule of the law that allowed Sudan's notorious war criminal president to travel without being arrested for so long - at least in that case there was the pretence of an argument diplomatic immunity, which does not apply in this instance.
It is difficult to conceive that an hardline ex-cop like the current Commonwealth Home Affairs Minister would allow such a blatant disregard for the law, so I am inclined towards this being a stuff up. Nevertheless, it needs to be investigated (as both bodies say they are doing), the causes identified, and action implemented to make sure we never again allow a criminal of this type to flit in and out.
Thirdly, an opinion that "corporations will never be vanguards for free speech in a new era of ideological competition with the People’s Republic". Now, the points the article makes about China's growing confidence/fear (I suggest it may be both at the same time), the internal CCP documents, and the ideological conflict between the Chines Communist Party and the West are all true, valid, and well worth considering.
However, the comment that "multinational corporations . . . are not structured to have a moral compass which guides decision-making" is dated, and only partly correct. There is a growing recognition within the business world of the importance of being ethical - business leaders have taken stands on Equal Marriage, modern slavery (e.g., Andrew Forrest), conflict minerals, and other progressive issues. Not all businesses, true, and they are still subject to the profit imperative, but don't downplay the growing moral conscience, whether it comes from education by activists that has increased awareness, personal beliefs / characteristics, or activist shareholders: it is present, it has a heart beat, and it is growing.
Having made that qualification, though, I also endorse the importance of civil society . . . and political leadership on such issues.
Finally, the working week. I must have missed this at the time, or didn't give it proper attention, but the notion of a 15 hour working week, provided it comes with people having an adequate, comfortable lifestyle, may be one we have to adopt as the population ages, and some people pay only lip service (see here, here, here, and here) to the notion of adequately enabling older people to work and survive with dignity. The concept has been floated again: see here.
Firstly, the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has published a commentary and supporting data on the election of nations which are human rights abusers (notably, Venezuela) to the UN General Assembly's Human Rights Council. These publications are clear, concise and accurate: I agree with their thrust, and I am pleased that specific recommendations have been made.
My main problem with the commentary is that I am having trouble finding a copy of "the Irish Principles" that it refers to. I was eventually able to track down a copy from an interesting analysis of the principles that I found first. (Unfortunately, informal names don't appear in official designations - SIGH )
I also consider that one of the fundamental problems with the HRC is that it is too large (47 nations, out of a membership of 193 nations, and election by nations, rather than human rights experts - or at least preliminary screening by human rights experts) - one of the reasons that some of these human rights abusing nations get on to the Council is that they are needed to meet the combined effects of quotas on representation from regions and rotation of membership: when there are only a few nations from a region, and everyone else has had a turn at membership of the HRC, it winds up being politically awkward to reject an abusive nation - they should be rejected, but no-one has had the integrity to do so thus far (except, I think, for Libya).
Next, a disturbing failure to apprehend a sanctioned war criminal which resulted in him being able to gamble at a casino in my home city - see here - losing six million dollars would surely have made him noticed? This is a staggering failure of (a) border controls (are we back to having a Border Control Farce?), and (b) operation of the casino concerned - and this incident has been raised as other concerns are been alleged.
I hope that this does not represent the same sort of disdain and contempt for the international rule of the law that allowed Sudan's notorious war criminal president to travel without being arrested for so long - at least in that case there was the pretence of an argument diplomatic immunity, which does not apply in this instance.
It is difficult to conceive that an hardline ex-cop like the current Commonwealth Home Affairs Minister would allow such a blatant disregard for the law, so I am inclined towards this being a stuff up. Nevertheless, it needs to be investigated (as both bodies say they are doing), the causes identified, and action implemented to make sure we never again allow a criminal of this type to flit in and out.
Thirdly, an opinion that "corporations will never be vanguards for free speech in a new era of ideological competition with the People’s Republic". Now, the points the article makes about China's growing confidence/fear (I suggest it may be both at the same time), the internal CCP documents, and the ideological conflict between the Chines Communist Party and the West are all true, valid, and well worth considering.
However, the comment that "multinational corporations . . . are not structured to have a moral compass which guides decision-making" is dated, and only partly correct. There is a growing recognition within the business world of the importance of being ethical - business leaders have taken stands on Equal Marriage, modern slavery (e.g., Andrew Forrest), conflict minerals, and other progressive issues. Not all businesses, true, and they are still subject to the profit imperative, but don't downplay the growing moral conscience, whether it comes from education by activists that has increased awareness, personal beliefs / characteristics, or activist shareholders: it is present, it has a heart beat, and it is growing.
Having made that qualification, though, I also endorse the importance of civil society . . . and political leadership on such issues.
Finally, the working week. I must have missed this at the time, or didn't give it proper attention, but the notion of a 15 hour working week, provided it comes with people having an adequate, comfortable lifestyle, may be one we have to adopt as the population ages, and some people pay only lip service (see here, here, here, and here) to the notion of adequately enabling older people to work and survive with dignity. The concept has been floated again: see here.
Thursday 17 October 2019
The Caspian Report on Turkey's invasion of Syria
The Caspian Report's video on the Turkish military incursion into Syria against the Kurds has some excellent observations on the history and the nuances, and details I've been looking for ever since this started, such as the width of the "corridor" Turkey claims it wants. Well worth a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcA3Jmb33k.
Wednesday 16 October 2019
Steps towards fixing the combustible cladding problem
(Note: this is a - clumsy, as I am relying on second hand sources - journalism exercise.)
The Andrews Government has announced that it will pursue "dodgy building practitioners" on behalf of those who own apartments identified as having combustible cladding.
The intention is to save the owners "time, hassle and expense".
In addition, a levy will be applied to permits for new, large multi-storey buildings to cover the half of the $600 million rectification fund that the Commonwealth declined to fund.
Modelling reported here indicates that the cost of rectification could be between $250 million and $1.6 billion.
Some have raised concerns - reported here - that work to fix the cladding problems may uncover other issues. The ABC reported that "The Victorian Treasurer, Tim Pallas, said the Government had the capacity to increase the rectification budget if needed."
Works are expected to take up to five years.
In the interim, this Guardian article reports that "Fire safety advice, including a recommendation that barbecues not be placed alongside cladding on high-rise balconies, has been published in 10 languages on the VBA website."
The legislation was introduced to the Victorian Parliament on Tuesday.
In addition, this matter has been the subject of several court cases, with a VCAT decision on the Lacrosse fire that the builder was liable for costs, but also that "the architect, fire engineer and building certifier who worked on the project . . . had breached contractual obligations", leading to an email to architects from "the Australian Institute of Architects . . . that they might need to seek counselling."
Furthermore, as The Conversation article noted, "The decision reminds architects and other consultants that abiding by common practice is no defence if that practice is inadequate."
The Conversation article also outlined the role that relaxation in regulations had played:
Other articles have linked the combustible cladding problem to the removal of local government from building approvals in the 1990s, particularly under former Premier Jeff Kennett.
The Andrews Government has announced that it will pursue "dodgy building practitioners" on behalf of those who own apartments identified as having combustible cladding.
The intention is to save the owners "time, hassle and expense".
In addition, a levy will be applied to permits for new, large multi-storey buildings to cover the half of the $600 million rectification fund that the Commonwealth declined to fund.
Modelling reported here indicates that the cost of rectification could be between $250 million and $1.6 billion.
Some have raised concerns - reported here - that work to fix the cladding problems may uncover other issues. The ABC reported that "The Victorian Treasurer, Tim Pallas, said the Government had the capacity to increase the rectification budget if needed."
Works are expected to take up to five years.
In the interim, this Guardian article reports that "Fire safety advice, including a recommendation that barbecues not be placed alongside cladding on high-rise balconies, has been published in 10 languages on the VBA website."
The legislation was introduced to the Victorian Parliament on Tuesday.
In addition, this matter has been the subject of several court cases, with a VCAT decision on the Lacrosse fire that the builder was liable for costs, but also that "the architect, fire engineer and building certifier who worked on the project . . . had breached contractual obligations", leading to an email to architects from "the Australian Institute of Architects . . . that they might need to seek counselling."
Furthermore, as The Conversation article noted, "The decision reminds architects and other consultants that abiding by common practice is no defence if that practice is inadequate."
The Conversation article also outlined the role that relaxation in regulations had played:
"Those who eased the regulatory framework in place in Australia since the late 1980s share culpability with the consultants for the fires at Lacrosse and Neo200. Until the early 1990s, Australian building codes prohibited the use of combustible elements on the facades of tall buildings. Throughout the 1990s, the then Building Code of Australia (now the National Construction Code or NCC) was relaxed to a “performance standard”, which allowed builders and consultants to believe aluminium composite panels and timber were permissible."No action was taken despite growing evidence in the 2000s of the fire risk.
Other articles have linked the combustible cladding problem to the removal of local government from building approvals in the 1990s, particularly under former Premier Jeff Kennett.
Africa and Australia
In
my experience, many white Australians are sadly clueless about Africa [1].
Progressive Australians may know and admire Nelson Mandela (or, perhaps more accurately, know and admire his legacy), others are too often inclined towards racism that is partly due to our history of endemic discrimination, and partly through only noticing negative media reports.
That is unfortunate, as there have been some major advancements and initiatives in Africa - for instance, "The Elders", an initiative of Nelson Mandela which has worldwide impact, and the African Union (AU), which replaced the earlier Organisation of African Unity, and has been exemplary in diplomatic and humanitarian activity.
But none of that - or almost none of it - makes it into mainstream media here.
I get access to a little more through having subscribed to the news advisory service of the Africa Centre for Strategic Studies (see here, here, and here), which tends to be a bit biased by its security focus, but at least is broad-based, including women and capability building, for instance. (I used to see even more sources when I was doing my news posts on my main blog.)
Occasionally there can be something good which turns up. As an example, when we were hosting a study team from eastern Africa a few years ago to look at recent developments in wastewater treatment, a media article appeared reporting that some coins which had been found in 1944 had been identified as being from Kilwa, in what is now Tanzania - see here. It now appears that the coins may have come via traders from Makassar, so there was an indirect trading connection centuries ago between Australia's Yolgnu people and Kilwa in Africa.
It was a great comment to end the study trip on a positive note, and is a useful segue to the topic of this post. (And, incidentally, there also indications of trade and contact between China and pre-European settlement Australia - see here, here, here, - and there was an even better article, but I haven't been able to find that.)
Now, connections between nations are often assessed according to a fairly limited and closely-defined set of "interests", defined in a way that makes arguing for humanitarian aid (let alone intervention) more difficult. Leaving that aside for now, Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT - see here and here), has summarised Australia's interactions with Africa, including what could be termed our humanitarian interactions, quite well at https://dfat.gov.au/geo/africa-middle-east/Pages/africa-region-brief.aspx.
To summarise the DFAT briefing:
The section on improved governance of extractives includes the following:
To gain a visual understanding of that, look at this map (yes, it is published by the CIA - their World Factbook can be quite useful - and it is surprising what they have published on their blog - e.g., ghosts, UFOs, and diversity & inclusion [I'm fairly sure they published the sketches that came out of some psychic trials as well, but I cannot find those, so maybe not] ).
Nevertheless, as I alluded to above, this trade should be encouraged - not only for its own sake, but also because it has a potential benefit in terms of cultural exchanges. I consider the benefits claimed for international trade in terms of preventing war to be nonsensical, but there can be benefits - particularly for those who find it difficult to set sail on the frigates of imagination that are books (comment adapted from Emily Dickenson's "There is No Frigate Like a Book").
Now, at this point, I'd like to do a comparison of Australia and what I term central and southern Africa, but is more generally termed "sub-Saharan" Africa, from the point of view of governance. This is based on the assessment at the World Bank's "Worldwide Governance Indicators" (WGI; see http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/ [northern Africa is combined with West Asia [aka West Asia] ), which sounds great, but it is based on perceptions, and thus - although by experts - should possibly be taken with a grain of salt (the high ratings for the USA on crime show just how cautious one has to be, actually).
Nevertheless, rightly or wrongly (usually wrongly - just ask any victim of discrimination), perceptions matter in this world, and the tables below are what the WGI reports for sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. (There are some maps at the end of the post to show the variation within Africa.)
Let's begin with governance. Now, while Australia shows as being in a fairly high quartile compared to sub-Saharan Africa, both are experiencing a decline in government effectiveness, and Australia is showing a decline in control of corruption that sub-Saharan Africa is not experiencing.
Closely related to political matters is "voice and accountability":
Africa shows a consistent ranking on this issue, although lower than ours. That, no doubt, will surprise those who have a negative view of Africa.
Next we have "rule of law":
As with some of the previous indicators, Australia is experiencing a decline, although the quartile ranking is higher than Africa. As significant areas of Africa are experiencing war, civil war, insurrection, or violent extremism, their maintenance of their ranking on this issue is worthy of respect.
So what does all this show?
In my opinion, it shows the legacy of violent colonialism - colonialism that came close to wiping out Australia's indigenous people and culture, had devastating effects on India, China, and elsewhere (which I've written about elsewhere - see here, here, here, and here, for instance), and is well illustrated, in the case of one African nation, by David Van Reybrouck's "Congo - the Epic History of a People" (pub. Fourth Estate [HarperCollins], London, 2015, first pub. 2014, Amsterdam; ISBN 9780007562923; Amazon). That, however, is a topic for a separate dozen or more posts.
The variations show, in my opinion, that Australia should not be too arrogant - sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, has been consistent on "Rule of Law" whereas we, in far more stable conditions, have not. Botswana (see here, here, and here) is in the same quartile as Australia in one category, and just a little lower in another.
There is a tendency to assume that Australia is well-placed to provide capability development in these areas, owing to our higher ranking. I consider, however, that we need to be cautious about exporting our systems that way.
I'm not convinced that there are cultural differences that are of great significance (that tends to be an excuse used by dictators to maintain power), particularly after coming across the cross-cultural support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it was being formulated (see Mary Ann Glendon's "A World Made New" [Random House, 2002, ISBN 978-0679463108] - also see here, which talks about a worldwide survey of cultural attitudes that found universal support for what was included, as well as two of the three key figures being P.C. Chang from China and Charles Malik from Lebanon), but our systems work well in the context of a nation that has experienced relative internal peace for some time: we have little need of things like hybrid courts (although it could be said we're in transition from a genocidal past and thus maybe could do with some of those . . . ) nor do we have to give as much weight to development needs, management of violent extremism, etc.
Our skills and knowledge should, in my opinion, quite possibly be adapted through a prism like that of the AGAAR (or "The Elders") before we get too cocky about that.
Nevertheless, given the role we claimed so proudly in the British Empire, which extended as far as officially fighting in the second Boer War (and Australian mercenaries being involved in other conflicts, much as they are in the UAE's current aggressions), as well as the benefits of being actively involved in providing aid (more on that shortly), I consider that there is a strong case for Australia to care about and be involved - respectfully - in seeking to improve the legacy our forebears were so proud of having inflicted (yes, one of my drivers for this is moral).
In terms of this post, the WGI results may tend to give an indication of how well Africa is achieving improvements, which is also a measure of how effective the rest of the world, including Australia, has been at achieving their aims of help.
Despite my caution, it seems to me that governance and related matters are areas where we could provide assistance, so the inclusion of that in our offerings to date is sound.
More generally, there is certainly a need for - and thus an opportunity to - provide human development aid. The diagram below is from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_United_Kingdom&oldid=918544504:
A key part of that will be ensuring peace, as violence of all forms has clearly caused major harm - see the above diagram, for instance, and also here, here, here, here, and here, for instance. Supporting peacekeeping is one way we can help, but I suspect the work of the AU and The Elders, combined with lots of patience and persistence, will be crucial in achieving peace.
That is actually a useful lead in to what I want to consider next: a defence of our involvement in aid generally, and particularly to Africa.
I suspect the benefits of providing aid are well known and accepted in DFAT, and possibly also in our current and previous Foreign Ministers.
However, the "everyday person" may not, and may resent spending money overseas when people here are in difficulty, and we have such a desperate need to do things like increase Newstart.
My response to those people is - and I'm going to be brief here as (1) I'm running out of steam, and (2) each of these points merits a post on its own - as follows:
I'll leave this post at that for now, but hopefully will get the time and energy to edit it into something better down the track.
PS - I hope anything to do with mining is properly considering environmental and slavery issues
Notes
[1] Apart from having worked with Africans (not intending to become Australian citizens) in Australia who are professionals (and having co-written a technical paper with a former colleague in Africa), the simple truth is that many Africans are here as a result of non-humanitarian programmes - including skill-based and family programmes, some going back to Commonwealth schemes in the 60s. For more on this, see here, here (opens as a PDF extract), and here, which puts people of African origin in Australia back as far as the First Fleet. (And possibly earlier, given the gaps in our knowledge of pre-1788 trade.)
Appendix - map presentation of 2018 perceptions:
Political stability
Government Effectiveness
Regulatory Quality
Control of Corruption
Voice and Accountability
Rule of Law
That is unfortunate, as there have been some major advancements and initiatives in Africa - for instance, "The Elders", an initiative of Nelson Mandela which has worldwide impact, and the African Union (AU), which replaced the earlier Organisation of African Unity, and has been exemplary in diplomatic and humanitarian activity.
But none of that - or almost none of it - makes it into mainstream media here.
I get access to a little more through having subscribed to the news advisory service of the Africa Centre for Strategic Studies (see here, here, and here), which tends to be a bit biased by its security focus, but at least is broad-based, including women and capability building, for instance. (I used to see even more sources when I was doing my news posts on my main blog.)
Occasionally there can be something good which turns up. As an example, when we were hosting a study team from eastern Africa a few years ago to look at recent developments in wastewater treatment, a media article appeared reporting that some coins which had been found in 1944 had been identified as being from Kilwa, in what is now Tanzania - see here. It now appears that the coins may have come via traders from Makassar, so there was an indirect trading connection centuries ago between Australia's Yolgnu people and Kilwa in Africa.
It was a great comment to end the study trip on a positive note, and is a useful segue to the topic of this post. (And, incidentally, there also indications of trade and contact between China and pre-European settlement Australia - see here, here, here, - and there was an even better article, but I haven't been able to find that.)
Now, connections between nations are often assessed according to a fairly limited and closely-defined set of "interests", defined in a way that makes arguing for humanitarian aid (let alone intervention) more difficult. Leaving that aside for now, Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT - see here and here), has summarised Australia's interactions with Africa, including what could be termed our humanitarian interactions, quite well at https://dfat.gov.au/geo/africa-middle-east/Pages/africa-region-brief.aspx.
To summarise the DFAT briefing:
- Australia has diplomatic relations with all 54 African nations, and ties with key organisations such as AU, ECOWAS, SADC, the EAC, the IAD, the ICGLR, and COMESA;
- "economic diplomacy" is "at the core of . . . the Australian Government's approach to international engagement", and includes the "annual Australia-Africa Week", which features the Australia-Africa Universities Network forum, the Africa Down Under Mining Conference and the Africa-Australia Infrastructure + Technology Conference;
- trade with Africa was valued at $10.7 billion in 2017-18, and there were at the time of preparing the briefing "170 ASX-listed companies operating in 35 countries in Africa" (out of around 2,200 listings);
(for comparison, noting that in 2019 Africa's population was 1.3 billion people, Australia's was 25 million, Africa's total GDP "as of 2019" was reported here as $6,900 billion, Australia's GDP was estimated here as $1,400 billion [I've rounded to the nearest hundred billion];
"12.5% of Africa's exports are to China, and 4% are to India, which accounts for 5% of China's imports and 8% of India's";
whereas, for Australia, "East Asia . . . is a top export destination, accounting for about 64% of exports in 2016"; - "development cooperation" occurs in the areas of:
(a) international aid (estimated to be $125 million in 2018-19, $32 million in 2019-20, $119 million in 2019-10),including an "awards" programme (seems to be similar to a scholarship programme) to "contribute to African leadership and human capacity development in the areas of extractives, agricultural and public policy";
(b) improved governance of extractive industry;
(c) agricultural investment, market development, and knowledge sharing (see here and here), with a comment that "Agriculture supports the livelihoods of 80 per cent of Africans and provides employment for about 60 per cent of the economically active population";
(d) Australia "provides funding to NGOs through the Australian Cooperation Program (ANCP), the Direct Aid Program (DAP) and the Civil Society WASH Fund", as:
"The Australian aid program values partnerships with civil society organisations including non-government organisations (NGOs). Civil society organisations can be powerful agents for change—as partners in delivering better services for the poorest members of society, and as enablers of social inclusion. They can also advocate for more effective, accountable and transparent governments. Civil society organisations promote community level engagement, build the capacity of civil society more broadly and strengthen people to people links. Australian NGOs have longstanding connections, expertise and experience in Africa. They are working with communities across the African continent. According to the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID), approximately 30 per cent ($97,957,604.00) of all public donations made by Australians in 2016-17 for development projects overseas went to projects in Africa."
(e) humanitarian assistance (see here), and a note that "Australia continues to be responsive to Africa’s humanitarian needs", which is good, but I would be interested in knowing (i) how our contribution - as a percentage of our GDP compares to the contribution made by other developed nations, and (ii) how the total aid compares to the total needs of that continent.
(f) facilitating volunteers (also organised by non-government groups, which I've come across a few times - see here and here);
(g) contribution to peacekeeping and security ("We are the 11th largest contributor to the UN peacekeeping budget"), together with cooperation and "training to African Defence personnel through a range of courses with a peacekeeping focus" - all of which is good, but I would like to know how we compare on a GDP basis with other developed, Western nations; and
(h) an Advisory Group on Australia-Africa Relations (AGAAR),established in 2015.
The section on improved governance of extractives includes the following:
Why we give aidNow, the first comment I would like to make about that information is that trade is unlikely to be a significant part of the international relationship between these two continents - the volume of trade, while no doubt significant to those involved, and worth respecting and supporting in its own right, is unlikely to reach the point of being a significant national interest for either continent.
Population growth, rapid urbanisation and industrialisation have fuelled global demand for metals, minerals, oil and gas, creating rapid growth in investment. The extractives and energy sectors drive trade, economic growth and development in the Indo-Pacific region by creating jobs and boosting government revenues. However, investment in developing countries' extractives sectors comes with many challenges. Many resource-rich developing countries perform worse than less-endowed countries on human development indicators.
Australia aims to support developing countries to maximise sustainable benefits from their natural resources, while helping them overcome the challenges. Through engagement in the extractives sector we can assist resource-rich developing countries to strengthen relationships with the private sector, improve governance and revenue management and build technical skills. Continued support in this area is also important for businesses wanting to trade with, and invest in, stable and predictable overseas environments.
How we give aid
We work with multilateral organisations, other government agencies, non-government organisations, universities and the private sector to assist partner governments to maximise the development potential of their extractives sectors. Our activities focus on strengthening the capacity of governments in the Indo-Pacific region and Africa.
Multilateral approaches have proven effective to reduce corruption and improve the transparency, accountability and management of extractives related payments, benefitting both host countries and investors . . .
To gain a visual understanding of that, look at this map (yes, it is published by the CIA - their World Factbook can be quite useful - and it is surprising what they have published on their blog - e.g., ghosts, UFOs, and diversity & inclusion [I'm fairly sure they published the sketches that came out of some psychic trials as well, but I cannot find those, so maybe not] ).
Nevertheless, as I alluded to above, this trade should be encouraged - not only for its own sake, but also because it has a potential benefit in terms of cultural exchanges. I consider the benefits claimed for international trade in terms of preventing war to be nonsensical, but there can be benefits - particularly for those who find it difficult to set sail on the frigates of imagination that are books (comment adapted from Emily Dickenson's "There is No Frigate Like a Book").
Now, at this point, I'd like to do a comparison of Australia and what I term central and southern Africa, but is more generally termed "sub-Saharan" Africa, from the point of view of governance. This is based on the assessment at the World Bank's "Worldwide Governance Indicators" (WGI; see http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/ [northern Africa is combined with West Asia [aka West Asia] ), which sounds great, but it is based on perceptions, and thus - although by experts - should possibly be taken with a grain of salt (the high ratings for the USA on crime show just how cautious one has to be, actually).
Nevertheless, rightly or wrongly (usually wrongly - just ask any victim of discrimination), perceptions matter in this world, and the tables below are what the WGI reports for sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. (There are some maps at the end of the post to show the variation within Africa.)
Let's begin with governance. Now, while Australia shows as being in a fairly high quartile compared to sub-Saharan Africa, both are experiencing a decline in government effectiveness, and Australia is showing a decline in control of corruption that sub-Saharan Africa is not experiencing.
Closely related to political matters is "voice and accountability":
Africa shows a consistent ranking on this issue, although lower than ours. That, no doubt, will surprise those who have a negative view of Africa.
Next we have "rule of law":
As with some of the previous indicators, Australia is experiencing a decline, although the quartile ranking is higher than Africa. As significant areas of Africa are experiencing war, civil war, insurrection, or violent extremism, their maintenance of their ranking on this issue is worthy of respect.
So what does all this show?
In my opinion, it shows the legacy of violent colonialism - colonialism that came close to wiping out Australia's indigenous people and culture, had devastating effects on India, China, and elsewhere (which I've written about elsewhere - see here, here, here, and here, for instance), and is well illustrated, in the case of one African nation, by David Van Reybrouck's "Congo - the Epic History of a People" (pub. Fourth Estate [HarperCollins], London, 2015, first pub. 2014, Amsterdam; ISBN 9780007562923; Amazon). That, however, is a topic for a separate dozen or more posts.
The variations show, in my opinion, that Australia should not be too arrogant - sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, has been consistent on "Rule of Law" whereas we, in far more stable conditions, have not. Botswana (see here, here, and here) is in the same quartile as Australia in one category, and just a little lower in another.
There is a tendency to assume that Australia is well-placed to provide capability development in these areas, owing to our higher ranking. I consider, however, that we need to be cautious about exporting our systems that way.
I'm not convinced that there are cultural differences that are of great significance (that tends to be an excuse used by dictators to maintain power), particularly after coming across the cross-cultural support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it was being formulated (see Mary Ann Glendon's "A World Made New" [Random House, 2002, ISBN 978-0679463108] - also see here, which talks about a worldwide survey of cultural attitudes that found universal support for what was included, as well as two of the three key figures being P.C. Chang from China and Charles Malik from Lebanon), but our systems work well in the context of a nation that has experienced relative internal peace for some time: we have little need of things like hybrid courts (although it could be said we're in transition from a genocidal past and thus maybe could do with some of those . . . ) nor do we have to give as much weight to development needs, management of violent extremism, etc.
Our skills and knowledge should, in my opinion, quite possibly be adapted through a prism like that of the AGAAR (or "The Elders") before we get too cocky about that.
Nevertheless, given the role we claimed so proudly in the British Empire, which extended as far as officially fighting in the second Boer War (and Australian mercenaries being involved in other conflicts, much as they are in the UAE's current aggressions), as well as the benefits of being actively involved in providing aid (more on that shortly), I consider that there is a strong case for Australia to care about and be involved - respectfully - in seeking to improve the legacy our forebears were so proud of having inflicted (yes, one of my drivers for this is moral).
In terms of this post, the WGI results may tend to give an indication of how well Africa is achieving improvements, which is also a measure of how effective the rest of the world, including Australia, has been at achieving their aims of help.
Despite my caution, it seems to me that governance and related matters are areas where we could provide assistance, so the inclusion of that in our offerings to date is sound.
More generally, there is certainly a need for - and thus an opportunity to - provide human development aid. The diagram below is from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_United_Kingdom&oldid=918544504:
A key part of that will be ensuring peace, as violence of all forms has clearly caused major harm - see the above diagram, for instance, and also here, here, here, here, and here, for instance. Supporting peacekeeping is one way we can help, but I suspect the work of the AU and The Elders, combined with lots of patience and persistence, will be crucial in achieving peace.
That is actually a useful lead in to what I want to consider next: a defence of our involvement in aid generally, and particularly to Africa.
I suspect the benefits of providing aid are well known and accepted in DFAT, and possibly also in our current and previous Foreign Ministers.
However, the "everyday person" may not, and may resent spending money overseas when people here are in difficulty, and we have such a desperate need to do things like increase Newstart.
My response to those people is - and I'm going to be brief here as (1) I'm running out of steam, and (2) each of these points merits a post on its own - as follows:
- Spending on preventing war/violence, or preventing war/violence spreading, and ending war/violence ASAP after it has started, does save money. This occurs both directly, through not having to spend money on peacekeepers, and indirectly, through not "having" to spend money on aid to reverse the damage that war does to human development.
- War/violence has a way of spreading. This is, at the direct level, through the model described by the "Cure Violence" people, but also because refugees who are accepted may need help and if, as is the case in tight-wad Australia of recent years, that isn't provided, or the harm is exacerbated by the way we slowly process or "manage" asylum seekers and by our iniquitous racism, we may find the effects of the trauma they have experienced coming here.
- Cutting ourselves off from giving aid or accepting refugees is not in any way a beneficial response, as it actually weakens our borders - see here.
- Being part of the international legal system strengthens the systems that benefit us as well.
- I am of the view that practising and strengthening our ability to empathic in one area generally strengthens our ability to be empathic elsewhere - empathy can be taught, just as racism is taught. I'm aware of the problem of compassion fatigue, but teaching politicians to be able to care about helping people they cannot see in another nation enough to provide some help to them is, ultimately, going to help them learn to care about people they choose not to see here in Australia - such as the unemployed and the homeless, who I think neoliberals have a cartoon style caricature of in their heads, rather than a realistic, human depiction.
- Finally, I consider we should contribute to fixing problems that we caused or partly caused - and our notorious and abominable "White Australia" policy contributed to the abhorrent apartheid policy in South Africa, and we were involved in other colonialist nightmares, as touched on above.
I'll leave this post at that for now, but hopefully will get the time and energy to edit it into something better down the track.
PS - I hope anything to do with mining is properly considering environmental and slavery issues
Notes
[1] Apart from having worked with Africans (not intending to become Australian citizens) in Australia who are professionals (and having co-written a technical paper with a former colleague in Africa), the simple truth is that many Africans are here as a result of non-humanitarian programmes - including skill-based and family programmes, some going back to Commonwealth schemes in the 60s. For more on this, see here, here (opens as a PDF extract), and here, which puts people of African origin in Australia back as far as the First Fleet. (And possibly earlier, given the gaps in our knowledge of pre-1788 trade.)
Appendix - map presentation of 2018 perceptions:
Political stability
Government Effectiveness
Regulatory Quality
Control of Corruption
Voice and Accountability
Rule of Law
Saturday 12 October 2019
Review and lessons from TimeGhost Army’s “Rise of Evil - From Populism to Fascism”
A list of my book reviews can be found at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/09/studying-book-reviews.html.
This video (see here) is one episode in an historical series, presented by “TimeGhost History”, which is focused on the period between World Wars One and Two. This particular sub-series is looking at the year 1932, and other series have looked at earlier years and issues – including the spread of Communism, with several unsuccessful revolutions, the “Red Scare”, and, of course, the second Russian revolution in 1917 which was followed by a civil war (“the horrors left wing authoritarian ideology brought with it”).
This video (see here) is one episode in an historical series, presented by “TimeGhost History”, which is focused on the period between World Wars One and Two. This particular sub-series is looking at the year 1932, and other series have looked at earlier years and issues – including the spread of Communism, with several unsuccessful revolutions, the “Red Scare”, and, of course, the second Russian revolution in 1917 which was followed by a civil war (“the horrors left wing authoritarian ideology brought with it”).
This episode reviews the
development of right wing authoritarian ideologies, beginning with three Frenchmen.
Firstly, the French
General Georges
Boulanger who “promoted an aggressive nationalism, known as Revanchism”
in the 1880s based on reversing Germany’s military gains in 1871 and also reversing
anarchism and socialism to return to law and order and an imagined greater glory
of the past (including, in Republican France, supporting a return to monarchy).
This “taps into a deeply-rooted French sentiment
of revolution in times of dissatisfaction” and becomes popular – almost
leading a coup in 1889 after electoral successes, but he missed the opportunity
so he could be with his lover, and subsequently fled charges of conspiracy and
treasonable activity laid after an investigation based on the illegality of secret
societies. There was a subsequent allegation of a sex scandal, and, a few months
after his lover died, he committed suicide in 1891.
(The Wikipedia article
includes a short discussion on whether Boulangism was proto-fascist right-wing
movement or a precursor of fascism, and reports an assessment that, although charismatic,
Boulenger “was a mediocre leader who lacked vision and courage”.)
Second was the political
thinker Georges Sorel (lived 1847 – 1922), who, influenced by Socialist
thinker Karl Marx and Mutualist philosopher and politician Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon, considered the organisation of labour was crucial to achieving Marxism,
and developed Sorelianism based on that and the power of myth: “Sorel argues that a shared story, regardless if it is
based on lies, falsehoods, or myths, is crucial in uniting a group of people
into a movement”.
(The Wikipedia
article on Georges Sorel states: “His notion of
the power of myth in people's lives (in particular, national myth) inspired
socialists, anarchists, Marxists, and fascists”. The article also points
out that he is noted for a defence of violence . . . )
Finally, Charles
Maurras (lived 1868 – 1952), who was a xenophobic, anti-Semitic, Catholic,
militarist who also picked up on the power of myth, considered liberal democracy
had “degraded” French culture “by allowing
freemasons, protestants, Jews, and foreigners to enter the French Nation”,
but also considered “Socialism liberated from
democratic and cosmopolitan elements fits Nationalism well as a well-made glove
fits a beautiful hand”, and developed “Integral Nationalism”. (The
strange influences of fascism, incidentally, reached out to also include “According to some even Stalinism, which at the time
referred to as ‘Red Fascism’ by many other Communists”.) His philosophy
becomes popular in parallel with the appalling, anti-Semitic Dreyfus
Affair, and those two lead to “the first
really proto-fascist movement, Action Française, which will develop a staunchly
reactionary, racist, and antisemitic form of Nationalism”.
Mussolini later develops
Fascism in Italy in Italy, in 1922 (see here), which
has a shared myth of unfair treatment after World War One (Japan also has a shared
myth of unfair treatment, combined with experiencing racism), and multiple
French fascist parties develop following his model – although some become violent,
using assassination, sabotaging French efforts to aid the Republicans in the
Spanish Civil War, and forming a basis for collaboration under the German occupation
in the Second World War.
Fascism doesn’t, however,
become a major movement in France – the only nations where the vote gets over 20%
are “Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, and
Romania”, although “there were
countries where successful fascist or vaguely fascist movements didn’t use
democratic institutions to gain power, such as Poland, Japan, or Spain”.
Fascism does, however, develop in many other nations – South America, and then into
the USA, for example (where it became less popular as the extent of Nazism’s
aggression and militarism became more apparent), and West Asia (“Arab versions of Fascism challenges the status quo”).
However, Germany is where
it develops its most extreme form.
This video points out
that:
·
just as communism has certain requirements (an
industrialised society, according to Marx), so too does fascism:
o
a modern society and nation “with a sizable portion of people fed up with they see as
hypocritical and decadent liberal democracies” - which, in Germany’s
case, is fed by discontent over ineffective governance, economic hardship, and reaction
to the progressive and liberal “German Golden Twenties”;
o
the malcontents are united by the “stab in the back”
myth, but this is also increased by widespread anti-Semitism (not only in fascist
nations in the world of the 1920s and 1930s: 41% of US people thought Jews had too
much power, as compared to 13% in 2009 – which puts a disturbing light on matters
such as the rejection of Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler’s regime), despite the
fewer than 1% of Germans who are Jewish (although the definition used becomes
extreme) being mostly secular, well-integrated as Germans, and not dominant;
·
Bismarck’s welfare state means that most Germans
don’t see need for more labour rights;
·
Although fascism is anti-Marxist – particularly so
in the case of Nazism, they recruit large numbers of people from socialism (“a haven for disenfranchised Socialist militants and
thugs”) – and the name of the National Socialist party gives an indication
of the change which has occurred;
·
There are other versions of fascism (e.g., a Mussolini
style Fascism called Querfront [Third Position]) but they lose to Nazism in
December 1932 – in fact, although the term fascism is now often used as a pejorative,
in 1932 there were “many different forms of
authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies”;
·
Nazism differs from Mussolini’s fascism by rejecting
its “statist and collectivist economic aspects” for an oligarchic economic
model where private industry and finance have a certain amount of freedom, provided
they toe the xenophobic and nationalist line.
The video ends with an
assessment that, while, in 1932, “there might
not have been a ‘Global Fascist Surge,’ there was a global anti-democratic and
anti-liberal surge, sometimes taking on the form of Fascism. Thousands of
people ready to abandon the rule of law, betray civil liberties, and deny the sanctity
of human life. People . . .
[who] will serve as some of the most hardboiled
perpetrators of suppression, oppression, and mass murder of those they deem as
lesser non-desirable human beings . . . [and] will be the enablers, the collaborators, and the SS
volunteers. They will betray their country, their neighbours, and their friends
to fulfil dreams of superiority and glory at the expense of all decency,
humanity, and respect for human life.”
Before commenting on the
lessons I consider this video shows, I should point out that the video uses a definition
from political scientists Robert Paxton: “Fascism
may be defined as a political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with
community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of
unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed national militants,
working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandon democratic
liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal
restraint goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
I consider that definition
is probably arguable, but the term “fascist” has, to quite an extent, become a pejorative,
so it’s meaning does need to be considered.
Now, the first point I
wish to focus on is that of “the unifying myth”, which doesn’t need to be true,
and thus shows that the problem of “fake news” predates the terms by more than a
century. In fact, it probably goes back to early
human existence.
The “unifying myth” today
is that globalisation is irredeemably harmful, and that refugees are to be feared.
That video struck a few
chords in the world of POTUS45.
And at this point, I wish
to defer to Madeleine Albright, who, in her book “Fascism: A Warning” (pub. Harper, 2018, ISBN 978—06-283683-0),
covers the threat of POTUS45 and fascism – beginning with her early life fleeing
the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Now, Ms Albright points
out that the term “populism” dates back to at least 1890 in the USA, and that it
has a broader brush than most people think, but “when
we are afraid, angry, or confused, we may be tempted to give away bits of our freedom
. . . Bill Clinton observed that when people are uncertain, they’d rather
have leaders who are strong and wrong than right and weak”. When conditions
are unsettled, people lose their patient reflection, and want decisive direction
(Ms Albright has a particularly apt analogy with people liking vigilante movies).
So, as with this video,
there are conditions which have to exist for fascism to become popular – or at least
a creditable or attractive alternative, to a significant number of people.
My “take home” message
on this point is that we need to move beyond generic, high-level only thinking to
approaches that don’t leave anyone behind.
Yes, globalisation does
have benefits for many people, but it also harms some – and those people who were
“left behind” by globalisation are the ones who got POTUS45 over the electoral line.
Practising being inclusive
in all ways – e.g., widespread anti-discrimination laws and ways of
living – would, in my opinion, help ensure everyone, at all levels
of society, is attuned to ways of thinking aimed at ensuring no-one is either excluded
or left behind.
Now: the myth.
The last chapter of Ms
Albright’s book is titled “The Right Questions”. In that, and the preceding
chapter, one of the topics she raises is whether we are asking “the right questions”
(and there are some very good comments about communication, and holding to ideals).
That leads in to the next
counter to the risk of fascism: clear thinking.
We’re starting to address
this on social media, with campaigns urging people to think about sources, credibility,
etc. That’s good, but I consider we need to go further, and teach “clear
and present thinking”, as Brendan
Myers terms it, in schools – and also teach rhetoric (see here).
I’d like to add a couple
of points at this stage:
·
Firstly, this clear and present thinking needs to
ensure people are able to identify and reject incremental erosion of freedom. As
one of Ms Albright’s students responded to a question about whether a fascist movement
could become established in the USA, “Yes, it can.
Why? Because we’re so sure it can’t”.
·
Next, we need to be very aware of the methods we
are using to counter fascism. US President Truman once made a comment, in response
to McCarthyism, along the lines of not establishing a right wing dictatorship in
response to a left wing dictatorship. The last chapter of Ms Albright’s book begins
with a quote from Nietzsche: “Whoever fights with
monsters should see to it that in the process he does not himself become a monster”.
Engaging respectfully
is important – Paul K Chappell
writes
about it, a workshop
I attended a few months ago on how to counter backlash emphasised this, and interviews
with former right wing extremists also raise the benefit of not getting people offside
through aggression.
Of course, that is easier
said (or written) than done – especially the massive damage caused by those
people who are hateful, fearful, or misinformed.
There’s an aspect of this
that the great Dr Martin Luther King raised, which I quoted a few times of late,
that applies here as well:
“It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it
can restrain the heartless.”
In the early stages of
fascist developments, there may well be times where the law can and should be used
to contain movement away from democracy. An example of that comes in the next episode of the series, about how failures to follow democratic principles (and the law) result in Hitler being given power - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_Iz5yt2YUU.
The other point I’ve noted is that, to be effective, fascists need to
be organised.I can't think of any ethical way to fight that, but the principle also applies to those on the side of democracy and freedom: be organised in order to be effective.
I may edit this post further in due course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)