Trump, Biden and Pelosi - an early assessment

Ten days into the Trump administration I wrote (Monday Forum - the administrative competence of the Trump Administration) I wrote: 

I think that the thing that most surprised me about President Trump's Executive Order "PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES" was the apparent administrative incompetence involved, something that may be becoming a feature of the new US Administration at this point in its life. 

I think that this assessment was reasonably accurate. 

We are now at the same point in the Biden administration and I haven't yet formed a view beyond a degree of concern about the huge number of Executive Orders, As President Trump found out, an Executive Order does not an action make.

Rightly or wrongly, I think that President Biden's biggest problem is his own party. In  Trump, fear, hate, love and the need for objectivity in US politics, I wrote: "Nancy Pelosi. To my mind, she has become part of the US problem, impeding a US solution."  She forced and lost a first impeachment trial. Now she is trying again. 

Her base case my be stronger, but in going for an ex-President she has created circumstances where Republicans can combine to reject the move on in-principle grounds without really addressing the underlying issue. Even more precisely, they can recognise that what President Trump said was wrong and then reject the impeachment on procedural grounds. 

The Democrats may have hoped to gain by dividing the Republicans. In fact, they have given Republicans a get out of jail free card.

I may be wrong of course. We will see. In the meantime, we have to wait to see how President Biden goes. As I said, I don't have a view here yet, just a concern.      

Sunday Essay - Donald Trump, Joe Biden; what does it mean for Australia?

I have struggled to write anything sensible on the current US election campaign. I suppose that I've really tuned out in circumstances where commentary in Australia and the US is so polarised. I also wonder if it actually matters outside the US who wins. This may sound extreme, so I will try to explain.

We live in unexpectedly troubled times. 

At global level, we have seen the decline of what has been called the rules based order, essentially the institutions and rules that have governed trade, commerce and international relations since the Second World War. These may not always have been effective, but they did provide a framework. 

We have seen a rise in nationalism and in politics based on national and ethnic identity, We have seen a focus on "race" and "racial issues" from both left and right that has taken me back to a past that I thought we had put behind. We have seen a decline in humanitarian ideals, the rise in me first, a decline in the willingness to make sacrifices for others or the greater good, a fall in tolerance of difference and a disintegration in commonly held values.  

We have seen a rise in state actors asserting raw power wrapped up in the rubric of national pride and the redress of past wrongs. 

Certainly President Trump has been part of this process, but he is really a symptom rather than cause. He appeals to people who feel, rightly to my mind, that they have been ignored and have become, or at least risking becoming, the detritus of a change process. They feel, again rightly to my mind, that their beliefs are denigrated and belittled. In a way, they have been shafted by the libertarian right on one side, the left on the other. 

As an older Australian, I find the extremities of US thought very strange, The US is a far more complex society than ours, although the US extremities are represented here. However, I can recognise and respect. the views and grievances of Mr Trump's supporters even when I find them alien. There are similar groups and concerns in Australia. I understand them too even where I disagree. 

When I look at Mr Trump as a symptom as well as president, I think of him (in  Donald Rumsfeld's words) as a known unknown, known in the sense that we understand the broad parameters, unknown  in that we have no real idea what he will do next. He is a random element, a disruptor. This is not always bad. In shaking things up, he forces shifts in the way we perceive the world. I may dislike it, but it does cause shifts.  

I see Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris more as an unknown unknown. From a purely US domestic viewpoint, they may or may not be a good thing. My feeling is that they will bring more stability, but I'm not sure that they can bridge the divides. 

From an Australian and indeed global viewpoint I have no way of making a judgement. I just don't know. The current US presidential campaign is a US campaign driven by US domestic issues. There is no clarity on the US global approach that is so important to the rest of us. 

That is why I said that I wonder if it actually matters outside the US who wins. My feeling is that the US domestic focus will continue, that confusion will continue, that very little will actually change so far as the rest of the wold is concerned, 

So what does or should Australia do? That's a topic for another post.      

   

 

Saturday Morning Musings - living in a random world

I was searching for an image around the idea of a random world and found this image from North Coast Rep.

We do seem to be living in a random world. In January things still seemed stable, predictable to some degree. Here in Australia we had suffered first from drought and then major fires, but while they were major problems they were understandable, even predictable. Our various governments responded to the problems, with the focus then shifting to recovery.

Internationally, the difficulties associated with shifting global fault lines including the rise of China and a sometimes erratic US president were constant but familiar. The world's trouble spots - Yemen, ISIS in Africa, Brexit, Syria as examples - were known and sometimes reported. 

All this was swept away by covid-19. Suddenly, there seemed to be just one over-whelming dominant topic of conversation. Everything else vanished from coverage. Every certainty that we had vanished in the midst of shutdowns and change. 

At a personal level, the things that I had been doing (and valuing) to start a new life in Armidale stopped. My history course was suspended, local organisations closed, the new human interaction that I so valued stopped. 

Perhaps the biggest biggest blow was the decision by Australian Community Media to close or suspend so many papers. This affected me at a very direct and personal level. I had to work out what would happen with my columns. As someone who has written on the history of the newspaper press, as  someone who has had family connections with the papers and knew their importance, the closure deeply saddened me. I was especially saddened by what I saw as another element in the continuing destruction of the social and community infrastructure, the broader linkages in an area that I love and to which I have devoted a considerable proportion of my life.

The sudden closure of the Armidale Express office is a trivial thing in a global or even an Australian context, but is deeply personal. It happened just so quickly. What do you do with all the stuff in the office including back copies of the paper? What should be saved, or should it all be sent to the tip? 

Fortunately and thanks to local editor Laurie Bullock and my colleagues at the Armidale & District Historical Society, God bless them,  the newspaper archive was carried across the road and installed in the History Society meeting room. Now the bound copies of the paper from 1970 survive, at least for the present. But what do we do with them? The Regional Archives are shut because of covid-19  and have in any case been under pressure following the University of New England's decision to vacate the old Armidale Teacher's College site.  The Archive was struggling to maintain the collection it had and had to turf metres of documents. 

I accept that I am lucky.

 In some parts of the world, "seniors" were not allowed to leave home because of the risk to their health. At least in NSW, the advice was advisory, so we ancients could make our own decisions. I live in a comfortable house with a backyard and nearby walking tracks. Some of my friends did not have these options. I am also computer literate and was able to shift things on line. 

Mind you, I have still faced a learning curve here, one that I am still to master. I am not into Zoom and next week I am meant to participate in a podcast. This requires me to download a new app onto my mobile and then learn how to use it. I know that I need too, but do not feel confident enough!

I said that I am lucky. The social and economic disruption forced on many has been enormous. 

Consider a young person enrolled at university who has lost her casual work and is now living at home with her parents. She can't go to classes, although on-line may be available. She is suffering loss of human contact, loss of independence. She fears for her future. Will there be jobs when she finishes?

These are first world problems compared with many countries where people are starving as a consequence of shut-downs, but they are still very real to the individuals affected.  Perhaps it's not surprising that there has been so much kick-back against social distancing and restrictions. 

In Monday Forum - what are the possible longer term changes from the covid-19 pandemic? I wondered about the real changes that might flow from covid-19. I suppose that my thinking here was Australian-centric. Globally, the economic effects flowing from the pandemic are likely to to be most important. My concern was more micro, the the extent to which the shut-downs and consequent responses would have long term effects on the way we live and work or whether things would simply snap back to the way they were as things improved. I suspect more of the second. 

While covid-19 was still raging, the death of George Floyd at police hands and the subsequent protests largely swept covid-19 off the front pages in many countries. I doubt that anybody could see the video footage of his death and not be moved. This was another of those random events that acted as a catalyst. If Mr Floyd had not been killed in that way, if the police had stopped, if his death had not been recorded, then the protests would not have happened. 

The media I generally follow is very Western-centric. Indonesia is Australia's nearest neighbour and yet there has been little coverage here of events in that country. You have to read the English language Jakarta Globe or Jakarta Post to find coverage of covid-19. Interestingly, there appears to have been very little coverage of the Black Lives Matter protests. The same holds for the Hindustan Times or for some of the other papers I have looked at. 

 Given the absence of international reporting outside covid-19 or the Black Lives Matter protests, you could be forgiven for thinking that all other matters were in abeyance unless they had direct domestic effects. However, if you dig down you find that other things are happening. The problem is to find the information required to make sensible judgements on their implications. For the moment, they remain random activities, some of which may come to bite us.  

  

Monday Note - President Trump

Just over a month since my last post discussing President Trump. Since then, he has continued to flutter the dovecotes.A lot of the commentary that I have read as well as the reactions on social media has been very stereotyped. I see little point in getting my nightie in a knot over the man. He just is, a somewhat random element on the international stage stirring things up for worse or, maybe, better in some cases.

We cannot forecast, well at least I can't, just what he might do, although there are consistent themes. When faced with a somewhat random variable that we cannot control, the only thing that we can do is to manage our own reactions.

From a purely Australian perspective, the brewing trade war poses clear threats. Australia depends upon trade and indeed trade to those countries likely to be most adversely affected by the war. I think that we should maintain our efforts to support the freer global trading order. The US's share of the global economy has dropped below 20%. We should focus our efforts on the remaining 80%. I also think that we should become involved in China's Belt and Road Initiative since this is the largest global initiative focused on global economic development.

The strategic scene is obviously more complex. Australia wants the US to maintain its global role because this has provided a stable framework that has, to my mind, helped maintain global order despite mistakes. However, the US has had a long history of isolationism that President Trump seems to be playing too.

The US did over-extend. The withdrawal began under President Obama and seems to be continuing under President Trump.We have to deal with this in increasingly clouded circumstances. This creates problems from a narrow Australian perspective,  We are a wealthy country, but a small player by global standards outside narrowly defined economic measures. Crudely, we count, but only in a smallish way.

 I think that Australia has to do five things. we need to maintain the relationship with the US while recognising that the world is changing; we need to focus on maintaining the world economic order; we need to build new relationships, including supporting our neighbours;and we are going to have to continue to build our defence capabilities. In many ways the last is a waste of money because money spent on defence means that we cannot spend money on other things that will yield greater returns, but I think that it is necessary; and we need to extend what is often called soft power.

In doing these things, I think that we also need to adopt a low public profile. Australian political leaders cannot help but lecture, perform, playing to the domestic political marketplace. They also like telling people what to do.I wish that they would shut up, talking quietly while carrying the biggest stick that we can manage.        

Brexit outcomes: a stronger EU, a diminished UK?

Yesterday 29 April, the EU-27 formally endorsed the EU's negotiating guidelines for its negotiations with the UK over that country's exit from the EU. The photo shows Germany's Angela Merkel in discussions with Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.

The BBC has some of the best coverage. The links within this story will carry you through to related stories.

The EU focus on a united front was on display and reinforced by the European Council endorsement.

These negotiations were never going to be easy. The UK Government wanted parallel negotiations including trade, whereas the EU is insisting on sequential negotiations with the first key issues guaranteeing the rights of the 4.5 million EU/UK citizens who live in the UK or the EU; the future of the Northern Island border; and resolution of outstanding budget issues. This can be followed by discussions on trade matters.

Completed in 1992, the EU single market allows the free movement of goods, services, money and people within the European Union as if it was a single country. The UK has ruled out full participation, while the EU says it will not allow cherry picking. The trade negotiations are therefore likely to be complicated.

It is quite easy to think of worst case scenarios. In the worst of all absolute cases, the UK suffers major economic setbacks and shrinks to the United Kingdom of England and Wales, while the EU itself largely disintegrates, leaving a gaggle of inward looking nationalist protectionist states from the UK to the Balkans.This combination is unlikely.

I have previously argued that the institutional and economic factors linking the European federation are now so deeply entrenched that they provide a great deal of internal cohesion. My feeling is that the Brexit process is likely to reinforce EU unity and cohesion. This gives rise to the next worst case, one in which UK suffers major economic setbacks and shrinks to the United Kingdom of England and Wales with the EU surviving, if damaged at some levels. I think that the greatest risk to the EU from Bexit is not economic, but a narrowing of view linked not just to the withdrawal process, but to the withdrawal of the leavening effect of UK membership on EU culture and institutions.

Perhaps the absolute best case, the one that some of the Brexiteers hope for (not all: some devoutly look to the nationalist, protectionist alternative), is a reinvigorated UK with the EU remaining a strong economic partner and friend. This, the Brexiteers would say, is a plus-plus solution.

The end result will probably fall somewhere between the two polar points of the spectrum. My best guess is a strengthened EU with a somewhat diminished UK.   .

Reflections on the Indonesian elections

I know far less than I should about the Indonesian system of Government. I mention this now because of the elections to be held next Wednesday, 15  February 2017.

According to Wikipedia, at sub-national level Indonesia is divided into provinces.There are presently 34 provinces of which eight including Acheh  and the Jakarta Special Capital Region have special status.

Each province is headed by a governor and has its own legislative body, called Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (literally "Regional People's Representatives Assembly"). Governors and representative members are elected by popular vote for five-year terms.

In turn, provinces are made up of regencies and cities with their own local governments and parliamentary bodies. A regency is headed by a regent (Indonesian: Bupati), and a city is headed by a mayor (Indonesian: Wali kota). With the exception of the Jakarta Special Capital Region where the Governor of Jakarta has the power to appoint and dismiss mayors and regent within the Region, the regent or mayor and the representative council members are also elected by popular vote for a term of 5 years.

In turn, regencies and cities are broken up into districts.

Provincial elections are held on a rolling basis. In this election, electors are electing governors of seven provinces, mayors and regents for 18 cities, as well as local leaders in 76 districts. There are a total of 41 million eligible voters and 337 pairs of candidates for the Feb 15 polls.

Much attention has been focused on the race for the Jakarta Special Capital Region. where incumbent Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (popularly known as Ahok), a Christian Chinese Indonesian, has been subject to blasphemy charges following a campaign by the Islamic Defenders Front  The campaign included mass street protests reportedly attended by more than a million demonstrators, many bused in for the occasion.

 The campaign against Ahok has received considerable negative coverage outside Indonesia. (Here, here are examples). While I share the concerns, I am cautious about coming to judgement at this point.I simply don't know.

What does seem to be clear, is that all Ahok's opponents are using the affair to their own political advantage, playing to divides in Indonesian society for political gain. This includes action to try to force his suspension from office as Governor; his present term expires in October.

I guess my instinctive reaction is to say so what's new? The approach followed by the various protagonists including the appeal to religious and ethnic prejudice for political gain is not dissimilar from what happens in this country, The key issue is how those actions play out over time.

In the short term, the public opinion polls  (I have no ability to judge the polls) suggest that Ahok retains a solid base of support despite the campaigns. No candidate seems likely to score more than 50% of the vote, so a run-off will be necessary. With one exception that would seem to be an out-rider, Ahok has been consistently holding at one or two in the polls, meaning that he will go through to a second round. In that event, expect more agitation.

In the longer term, we just have to wait and see how things work out. Indonesia is a complex country still defining its position. I may be wrong, but I think that Indonesia will work its way through the various conundrums, if with the normal hiccups along the way.

Certainly I hope so. In Australian terms, Indonesia is a critical partner. It's also a partnership where in both economic and political power terms, Indonesia to Australia is becoming like Canada to the US or Australia to New Zealand as Australia declines in relative terms, Indonesia advances.

Rudd, Turnbull and the UN - anatomy of a fiasco

I haven't quite known what to think of Mr Rudd's UN bid, nor indeed what attitude the Australian Government should take towards it.

A long time ago now I wrote about the problems I saw in Mr Rudd's management style. He has become a polarising figure within his own party and more broadly within Australia.  At the same time, I have never doubted his intellect, his capacity for hard work, his very genuine and deep interest in international affairs and in the UN. I have also admired his ability to move on.

Looking at the way events have unfurled, the first question I asked myself was whether Mr Rudd was a credible candidate. The second was would his nomination embarrass Australia. My answer to the first question was yes, the answer to the second no. I also asked myself whether or not Mr Rudd might do some good in the role. My answer here was yes.

I then tried to think about the Australian position. From an Australia foreign policy perspective, was Mr Rudd the best candidate? I am not a foreign policy expert.  My feeling was quite possibly not. Here I am a little biased. I have a personal preference for former NZ PM Helen Clarke.

The question then was would an Australian nomination of Mr Rudd lock Australia into supporting him? I didn't know. It is the UN that makes the decision. In this first "contested" appointment, it would be good for the UN to have a wide choice. My gut judgement was that Australia could nominate Mr Rudd to provide choice without having to commit to his candidature. Later, the letters released suggested that Mr Rudd was asking for very little in the way of support. The scope was there for a nomination, for appropriate support without fully committing.

The events that finally unfolded throw a dark light on the maturity and judgement of Australia's political players. Within both Labor and Coalition parties, there were examples of the way in which past political angst affected a decision that should have had nothing to do with that angst. I have commented before on the inward parochial nature of Australia's political debate, the way in which that becomes the whole world ignoring broader issues.

The official expert recommendation from the Foreign Minister was effectively rejected by a Cabinet and Coalition parties unable to distinguish personality from policy and national interest. The inability of Cabinet to decide, to leave the issue to the PM, was a failure for Cabinet and PM. And then we have the final extraordinary result where the PM responded by rejecting Mr Rudd on the grounds that he was not suitable for the role in ways that can only be described as humiliating.

Let's be clear on this. It is the UN that makes the decision.  In a way, the Australian Government is like the recruitment consultant putting forward a candidate for the job. The employer has to maker the judgement. These events have humiliated Mr Rudd and embarrassed Australia. Neither deserved that.  

Japan, China and the lessons of the past

In a post on 29 June 2016, Train Reading - Shogun: William Adams, Ieyasu and the rise and fall of the Shogunate, I mentioned that my present train reading was Richard Storry's A History of Modern Japan (Pelican, 1960).

The Shogunate was followed by the Meiji era (1868-1912) during which Japan moved from a feudal form towards a modern industrial society. In a comment on my earlier post, Thomas wrote:

History indeed! I just this week finished our year 11 Modern History topic on this. The students always find it fascinating at the rapidity of Japanese modernisation under Meiji - some 300 years completed in 30! The struggle for power (both in Asia and within the internal structures of Japan) that follows is equally fascinating.

Thomas is right. As I followed Japan's history up the Second World and beyond, I felt a certain resonance with current events.

Croesus, King of Lydia, has come down to us today in two phrases. One is as rich as Croesus, for he was a very wealthy ruler. The second is the most famous phrase ever to come from the Oracle at Delphi. Croesus was considering war against Cyrus the Great of Persia. Seeking advice from the Oracle, he was told that if he attacked the Persians, he would destroy a great empire. He did and he did - his own.

Now Croesus was actually a fairly cautious person who seems capable of considerable planning. It's just that he interpreted the Oracle in the way that would support what he wanted to do. He also demonstrates that once you start a war, you can never be absolutely sure if the results. 

Today, intelligence advice has come to fulfil something of the same role once performed by the Oracle. It seems clear, I think, from the Chilcot Report that the intelligence advice on Sadam Hussein and his weapons was treated uncritically, interpreted in the context of an already established mindset. It also seems clear that if, as seemed inevitable, the allies won the ground war nobody really focused on the question of what might come next.

If you had told the younger radical Japanese army officers who engineered the Mukden Incident, an incident that helped lay the basis for the Second World War in the Pacific, that the empire that they would destroy would be their own, they would have been incredulous. Such thoughts could not penetrate the bubble that had been formed.

The modernised Japanese state that emerged from the Meiji era was unbalanced with representative institutions crafted onto culture, clan structures and attitudes formed during the Shogunate. Within that system, the Army acquired institutionalised powers and position that effectively made it a world in itself. 

The Navy provided some counterbalance, as did the continued presence of the older oligarchs who had played such a role in the modernisation and who continued to exercise influence. Yet the growth in the power of the Army, the radicalisation of the younger officer corp, the willingness in the broader society to use force to achieve individual ends, combined to create a climate that in the end overrode everything else and placed Japan on the path to disaster. 

Today, the Japanese story bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the unfolding drama in the South China Sea. The genesis of the modern dispute can, at least in part, be traced back to the great humiliation placed upon China by the empires including that republican empire, the United States. The Japanese Empire was late to the fray, but then became an active participant and, in the end, the most active participant with the aim of the dismemberment of China. 

Arguably of more importance is the the way in which modernising China's governing structures resemble those of Japan in that the modern Chinese state is really an amalgam of competing fiefdoms in which the military has come to play a very important role. We usually focus on the Party, but power in the Party rests on control of the instruments of state that in turn exercise their own influence.

It is a somewhat uncomfortable thought that, as happened with Japan, the internal power dynamics within the Chinese system may end in broader conflict.   

    

Confusions and risks in the post-Brexit path

I watched the UK's Brexit vote first with interest then with fascination and then with a degree of horror. I was opposed to the original decision to join the EEC, but after forty years membership unpicking the whole thing becomes difficult. Further, the campaign itself and the consequent vote played to and accentuated divides in the UK.

Northern Ireland

Northern Island voted to remain, but it was a divided vote. The leave campaign was backed by the DUP and Chief Minister and gained more support in Protestant areas. The DUP's Edwin Poots said he was "absolutely delighted"."I believe that we will recover very quickly after the initial shock. The farming community has been in the doldrums... I would expect this will help them. I would expect it will help our manufacturers and our exporters at this time."

Sinn Féin's Declan Kearney called it "a pyrrhic victory", pointing to the way that the English majority had over-ridden the democratic wishes in Northern Island. Sinn Féin is already calling for an all-Ireland vote to determine new arrangements.

The Irish Times reports that the British and Irish Prime Minister have already spoken on on the need to develop a new border plan that will preserve the links between the two countries. Neither side wants a resurgence of the Irish troubles that cause so many deaths.

Scotland

Scotland voted across the whole nation to remain by 62% to 38%, a sea of yellow. During the Scottish independence referendum, the EU was a key argument on the No side. You cannot assume, the No case said, that an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU. Best stay with Britain. 

In ruling out any immediate move towards another referendum, SNP Chief Minister Nicola Sturgeon made it clear that that position was conditional on the UK staying a member of the EU. As it became clear that the Leave side was heading for victory, she issued a statement saying the vote  had made clear "that the people of Scotland see their future as part of the European Union". She added: "We await the final UK-wide result, but Scotland has spoken - and spoken decisively."

Later, she told a media conference that a second independence referendum was "highly likely" after the UK voted to leave the EU.

The SNP manifesto for May's Holyrood elections said the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there was a "significant and material change" in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.

"It is, therefore, a statement of the obvious," Ms Sturgeon said, "that a second referendum must be on the table, and it is on the table." However, as in the Irish case, there is a desire to avoid rush, to try to think things through. Mr Cameron has undertaken to consult Scotland closely as the exit negotiations proceed. 

England and Wales

I have joined these two together primarily because I do not have sufficient information to make a sensible comment on Wales. Both voted to leave.

The English Leave vote dominated the total results. It was especially concentrated in areas that have not shared in growth or which have felt their way of life threatened. London generally voted Remain, but could not offset the Leave vote elsewhere. Manchester, a city undergoing reinvention, voted yes, but the former industrial areas to the North (original Belshaw country) voted to go.

This was also a generational conflict, with support for stay apparently higher among the more mobile young who have grown up with the EU.

Failure of the Political Classes

The Conservative Party split on this issue. So, to a much lesser extent, did Labour. Only the right wing UKIP was completely united and indeed is likely to have greatly strengthened its position. The  majority of the economic and political establishment who supported Remain failed to carry their normal supporters. The deep divisions were especially apparent within the Labour Party. 

Many of those in the UK and elsewhere on the right who argued for a Leave vote in the hope of a less regulated more dynamic Britain freed from the regulatory shackles of Europe will, I fear, be gravely disappointed. This was a vote against against change, a reaching to the past, a vote for protection. Expectations have been created that will be hard to fulfil, but the attempt must be made.

There is a lesson in this for Australia, for our main political parties and the political classes themselves have been insufficiently aware of the divides emerging in this country. 

Europe

It is, I think, no coincidence that within Europe it is the protectionist parties of the nationalist right who have cheered the results. They see it as legitimizing their cause. 

The more main stream parties still largely committed to the European project, the smaller countries especially in Eastern Europe who saw Britain as a balance, are all severely disappointed. They feel betrayed and see the English decision as an almost existential threat. This will play out during future discussions on British exit paths an its future relationships with Europe.

The stated European view is that the UK must negotiate an exit as soon as possible. The UK needs time to work through the consequences of its decision, to try to unify the country, to plan, but time is short.

Immigration

In many ways, the debate over immigration has been one of the silliest elements of this campaign, one high-jacked by concerns about refugees and homogeneity.

Many million British including retirees live in Europe, many million EU citizens live in the UK. Following the vote, the position of all these people has become uncertain and needs to be resolved. This dwarfs any present refugee issue. 

To stay an economic member of the EU free trade area, Britain will have to accept continued free movement of people. This creates a significant political problem.

Economic Impacts

The present wild gyrations in markets following the vote will pass. The economic shock will remain, although the final size has still to be determined. Businesses across Europe and indeed the world are now attempting to work out what this means for them.

For the present, the formal structures will remain. Nothing will change but everything has changed. Flows of goods and services will continue, but decisions on the future will now be based on the new relationship.

At a machinery level, things continue while Britain and the UK attempt to define new relationships. Do not expect this to be easy. EU calculations will be based on a simple equation: how do we minimize the political and economic damage? The UK's negotiating position is quite weak. In a way, it wants the EU without having the EU!

The changes that will take place in the medium term are unclear because of the complexities involved. They depend not just on institutional arrangements, but on millions of response decisions. Firms for whom the EU is a key market, especially global firms, will reduce UK activities. There will be some shift of jobs to Europe, but I'm really unsure as to the end effect.

Political and Diplomatic Repercussions

The decision represents a major change in the Western and indeed global political infrastructure. In the short term, it weakens the influence of both the UK and EU. The Western Alliance has been based in part on a Britain within Europe.

In the longer term, I suspect the effects will be less here than might be expected because the underlying dynamics haven't changed. However, it will require a myriad of changes to existing institutional arrangements before things settle down. The big risk in the longer term is that a more inward looking EU will lead to a major diminution in the European role and influence.

The Future of the EU

Britain's decision leaves a weaker EU. The decision is is also a sign of political and institutional failure within the EU. Will the EU fall apart? I very much doubt it, but the EU that now emerges will be a different EU.

The desire of the proponents of the European project to expand the EU into a truly pan-European Union that would make Europe great over reached in institutional, cultural and political terms. There will be much soul searching. The need for compromise and reform will, I think, lead to a more inward looking EU, one less open to external influence, one less willing to become involved.

I say this because the EU has to focus on fixing itself and that is going to require political compromises and an internal focus if it is to balance the forces of nationalism, improve performance and allow time for change. The resulting compromises are likely to weaken the centre for the moment, but will also lead to a more insular EU.

A New Elizabethan Age?

One of the reasons why the Remain case failed lay in its focus on economics and risks. It all came back to the UK will be financially better of if we remain in the EU, the costs to you of leaving will be too high.

 Accepting that I am away from the detail, it was all negative campaigning. There was no articulation, at least that I could see, of any positive messages linked to the EU membership. As an outsider if one with a daughter working in the EU, as an outsider with a knowledge of history, I can see messages. EU membership gives our children more options. The EU has linked Europe together, reducing the risks of another major European conflict. The EU increases our influence in the world. We should stay in the EU and work to reform it, to make Europe great.

All this type of thing was lost in a debate which came back to we will be worse off if we go on one side, we don't care but we want to do our own thing on the other, we want to make Britain (really England) great again.

Can Boris Johnson and the other more expansive leave proponents create a new Elizabethan age as promised in the face of Nigel Farage and UKIP and the little England proponents?

I would like to think so, but am sceptical. There is a fundamental conflict between Mr Johnson's rhetoric of a more open deregulated UK trading with the world and the practical realities of English politics, with the practical realities of a leave campaign that oversold the benefits, with the desire of so many English people to preserve the status quo, to recover things that have been lost.

All we can say at the moment is that things will be different. The nature of that difference will only be revealed with time.  

Brexit Conundrums

Updated 21 June

On 23 June, the UK will vote on Brexit, the decision to leave or remain within the EU. The last stage of the campaign has been overshadowed by the tragic murder of British MP Jo Cox.

We are not used to MPs being assassinated. I had actually forgotten that the IRA murdered a number during the troubles.

The Brexit campaign has been quite messy. According to the BBC, there is a large pro-Remain majority in the House of Commons, 454 MPs to 147. The vote is being held because of Euro-sceptic views within the governing Conservative Party, views that appear unrepresentative of the Parliament itself.

The electorate is polarised, with the majority of the young supporting remain, while leave support climbs with age. UK nationalists support leave, while Scottish nationalists support remain.

Now that a leave majority seems distinctly possible, everybody is scrambling to work out what it might mean. Can the UK, as the leave case argues, continue to gain the economic benefits of a common market and EU association while removing the disadvantages? The issue then becomes the price to be paid. According to French Economy Minister Macron, "If the UK wants a treaty of commercial access to the European market, the British will have to contribute to the European budget like the Norwegians or the Swiss. If London doesn't want that, then the exit will have to be total,"

It is quite difficult unscrambling an egg. The UK is enmeshed with the EU at so many levels that a managed exit would be quite difficult. The volume of legislation that would need to be amended or replaced alone would be a considerable task.

Other countries and international bodies including the IMF have lined up to warn of the dangers. The IMF's most adverse Brexit scenario predicts 2019 growth 5.6% below what it would otherwise have been, and also a drop in GDP in 2017 of 0.8%. The leave case argues that the UK would gain an economic bounce from reduced EU regulation and that the UK Government would, if necessary, replace EU subsidies presently received by some parts of the nation.

As the campaign evolved, the leave campaign seemed to gather strength because it was selling positives, the advantages of leaving, while the remain campaign was selling negatives, the risks of leaving.

To a degree, the EU polarises left and right, although the Euro sceptics are mainly on the right. Within Europe, there are significant fears that a UK exit might unbalance the Union and encourage those who want to tear it down. There is also a degree of anger. If the UK were to vote to leave, it would be in everybody's interests that that exit be handled with minimum harm to both sides, but that might not happen.

Within the UK, the Cameron Government is likely to face significant problems regardless of the result. If the vote is yes, it will have to deal with a Parliament in which the substantial no majority appears to be already organising to make life difficult, to try to preserve as much as possible of the relationship with the EU. It is also likely to face a renewed push for Scottish independence, with less left to offer.

If the vote is no, the Prime Minister has to manage as best he can the divisions created in his own party by the campaign.

Whichever way the vote goes, 23 June will be an historically significant date.

Postscript

Useful piece by Nick Miller and Mark Mulligan in the Canberra Times. Just noting for the moment.

Postscript 21 June 2016

Neil Whitfield has written a companion post to this one, Watching the UK’s big decision. In a comment, Bill Pilgrim wrote:

My understanding of this is that the objection by those against leaving the Euro is about Europe being a conduit for refugees entering the UK. And I am guessing that this was behind the recent assassination of Jo Cox. Is there not some way that the laws could be changed to allow Britain the right to determine who can migrate there without throwing out the whole EU union? 

This BBC piece while written from a particular direction shows some of the difficulties in a general sense when part of the angst is about general migration, when refugees become a touchstone issue to galvanise debate and where political parties responding make deliverable promises.

Another BBC piece, Chris Cook's The EU referendum may prove to be a generation game, looks at the generational and regional divides within the UK on the Brexit issue. There are some lessons here for Australia.
 

Gambia's Islamic state

We get very little African news in Australia, so it requires a special effort to keep up. This is a photo of Gambian President Yahya Jammeh.

For those who don't know Gambia, it is a narrow meandering slice along the Gambian River. The smallest country in mainland Africa, The Gambia is less than 48.2 km (30.0 mi) wide at its widest point, with a total area of 11,295 km2 (4,361 sq mi)..So its rather tiny.

Jammeh became head of state in a coup in 1994 and has remained in power since. Early fairer elections seem to have become progressively less fair.

Wikipedia records that on 11 December 2015, President Jammeh declared The Gambia to be an Islamic republic in what he said was a move designed to distance the country further from its colonial past. 

Speaking on his return from the 13th Islamic Summit of the Heads of State/Govenrment of the Organisation of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), President Jammeh thanked the member states of OIC for the support to host the 2018 OIC in Banjul. He concluded:

 “I depend on the Almighty Allah for whatever we achieve in this country, am not counting on anybody am counting on only the Almighty Allah for whatever we are going to do in this country because it is only the Almighty Allah that can give you what you want and that is what am banking on,” 

Meantime, the political situation in Gambia appears to have become more oppressive with the arrest of opposition leaders. I am not implying a link between the somewhat unexpected move to an Islamic state and the deterioration in civil liberties, for the deterioration in civil liberties was underway before that move. However, the President does appear to be using the move to provide further justification for the positions he is adopting.   

Lessons from the Paris attacks continued

As I write, investigations into the Paris attacks continue. It is was clearly coordinated and apparently well organised.

The events in Paris have over-run some background work I was doing trying to pull together various current threads in Australian and European politics. Because this has morphed into a significant research piece that may never be completed given current pressures (!),  I thought that I would use this post to pull together a few related threads.

This is an example of one of the images that circulated very quickly as the Paris tragedy was unfolding. It is an example of a meme that combines fear of Islam as a threat with a call to action against Islam.It's not sensible,  how do you ban the Muslim faith?, but it reflects fear. It is also an example of things presently circulating within Australia intended to lead to political action.

I concluded my post Saturday Morning Musings - lessons from the Paris terrorist attacks with these words: "There has been a kind of moral funk in the West, an unwillingness to accept the costs that can follow from genuine adherence to liberal principles, that has begun to undermine the very principles on which liberal democratic societies are based.....I guess that's my real worry from Paris. What lesson or lessons are we all, governments included, going to draw? And what will it cost us?".

Some, it seems, fear that the battle is already lost. In a piece in the Guardian, Nick Cohen suggests that after Paris, Europe may never be as free again: "The horrific events in Paris sound the death knell for European liberalism." Mr Cohen is clearly concerned at what it all means, at the possible loss of the liberal dream.

"Close Our Borders Now......Dont Wait For A Tragedy Like This To Happen"

This is another example of the visual images that circulated. as the attacks unfolded, one that focuses on immigration but has the other subtexts built in. Comments on my feeds included "Close Our Borders Now......Dont Wait For A Tragedy Like This To Happen"; "Turnbulls a Muslim lover...he's always wanted to be prime minister.... And it will be at the county's expense......: and "Ban Islam world wide."

It would be easy to dismiss images and comment like this, but they reflect deeply held personal concerns in Australia and elsewhere. In Europe, President Hollande has vowed to destroy Islamic State, saying it cannot be contained. Whether he can do this and with what effect is presently unclear. Certainly, it has led to a remarkable rapprochement with Russian President Putin.

Former French Justice Minister Rachida Dati told the BBC's Newsnight programme that German Chancellor Angela Merkel made "an error of judgement" by allowing so many migrants into Europe. "She was generous, but that generosity backfired against European people," Ms Dati said. The former minister also said that 90% of radicalisation in France and the rest of western Europe happened not in mosques but on the internet and in prisons where there are numerous jihadist recruiters. In the US, more than half the nation's governors -- 27 states, all but one Republican -- are reported as saying they oppose letting Syrian refugees (at least Muslim refugees) into their states, a fear that is playing out in the presidential campaign.

In Australia, telecommunications carrier Optus came under sustained attack for the simple act of having a poster in Arabic. Optus has withdrawn three of the ads from Casula Mall following threats to staff.

The pessimism expressed by Mr Cohen referred to earlier is echoed from different perspectives by others including Niall Ferguson (Paris and the Fall of Rome) and  Robert Skidelsky (Is western civilisation in terminal decline?) The linked ideas of the decline in western civilisation and the fall of the Roman Empire (at least the Western Empire; the Eastern survived for much longer ) are much in vogue, just at present, as is the idea of Western values. Writing in the Financial Times, Simon Schama (A proclamation against Isis, the party of death) argued that what "what our fellow citizens need now is a clarifying, empowering and inspiring statement of just what it is we must defend, if necessary, to the end". In the US, Republican presidential candidate has released a video calling the fight against IS "a clash of civilizations. And either they win or we win."

Australian conversations I have had since the attacks reflect concerns about Muslim fundamentalism, about the rights of countries to close their borders,.of the need to and right to preserve cultural homogeneity, of the need to protect the Australian way of life against threat. These views came in part from people on the left, traditional Labor or even Green supporters. Others pointed out, with some justice, that people in the West only responded when atrocities affected them. Overall, it was clear that people were deeply conflicted.

With exceptions such as NSW State National Party MP, Andrew Fraser, Australian political leaders including Immigration Minister Dutton have resisted the close the border rhetoric, have said that the country will continue to admit Syrian refugees as announced regardless of religion (or the lack of it). At the same time, it is clear that security measures will be further tightened including, it seems, the FBI teaching NSW police to shoot to kill in certain circumstances, something that creates a certain degree of personal discomfort.   

In this post, I have tried to sketch some of the different threads in the debate that has occurred since the Paris attacks. Underlying those threads are many other debates. There are in fact too many debates and associated threads, many not helpful, for people to easily manage. Further, too many are based on broad generalisations that act to conceal difference such as differences between countries or religious groups. What, for example, do you do with an argument about the decline of civilization or, indeed, clash of civilisations? They don't provide guidance as to how to respond in the specific circumstances of the Paris attacks.

This has become a very long post. I will try to look at specific Australian issues in a later post.

Russia's strategic adventures

Flying to and from Europe this time, I was very conscious of just where the plane was flying and wondered about missile risk. That came back when I watched the release last night of the Dutch Safety Board Report into the downing of MH17.

I don't think many in Western countries believe the apparent official Russian Federation line that it wasn't a Russian made missile that brought the plane down. In fact, I don't think that many people believe much that President Putin says full stop.

These things have a habit of working themselves out with time. It's actually quite difficult to make a position stick in the longer term where that position is based on a fundamental untruth. Ultimately, the position unravels. Of course, a lot may happen in the meantime.

The MH17 report made me look back at the small number of posts that I have written linked in some way to Russian foreign policy and strategic objectives. Since I first wrote after the start of the Ukrainian crisis, Russia has consolidated its hold over Crimea. The war in Eastern Ukraine has entered an uneasy stasis in large part, I think, because Mr Putin and his colleagues have achieved their immediate objectives, have other fish to fry, and so need to let things rest.

The importance that Russia places on the Eurasian dream has become clearer, linked to President Putin's vision of the re-assertion of what he sees as Russia's traditional place in Eurasia. The Russian involvement in Syria is, to my mind, a coldly calculated strategic decision that serves several objectives. It protects existing Russian bases; it tells Russian allies we will protect you; it further complicates life for the West; and it provides Russia with new bargaining chips and allies. And, by the way, it helps sell a variety of military kit! It's win-win all round.

The model that the West including Australia has been using with its focus on terrorism and existential threat seems to me to be flawed, flaws further exposed by Mr Putin's Syrian adventure. Sometimes there is something to be said for asking the most basic question, what's in it for me? That, I think, is Mr Putin's sole rule-stick.

So far as Syria is concerned there are obvious risks, but is still looks like win-win at this point regardless of the particular outcome.

   

Indonesian executions - reflections on the death of eight prisoners, including Bali nine organisers Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan

It is now confirmed that eight prisoners, including Bali nine organisers Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, have been executed in Indonesia. The executions were carried out at 12.30am local time (3.30am AEST) on Nusakambangan prison island. The photo of the vigil is from the Sydney Morning Herald.

Many issues are raise by the case. A few things are clear.

First, the Indonesian people cannot be blamed for the decisions of their Government. Some of the threats of retaliation are very silly and actually frightening.

Secondly, the whole case took place within a frame set by national sovereignty and Indonesian domestic politics. That's no different from Australia, or indeed any other country. 

Thirdly, the Australian Government has no choice but to react strongly. I don't think that public opinion will allow any other option. . 

 Australia and other countries involved need to indicate their displeasure at the Indonesian Government's decision. This should be done not by hurting the Indonesian people, they are not responsible, but by official punishing action directed at the Indonesian Government. Of course, this will pass, but if you don't make the point, future change will not be possible.

The Australian Government, and the Australian people, should also take a lesson. It's not possible in a globalised world to make domestic political considerations the total determinant of action independent of view elsewhere.

It's not just what is done, but also how it is done..Indonesia has handled this very badly      

A small rich country - revisiting threads in Australia's future

Back in March 2009, Saturday Morning Musings - threads in Australia's future attempted to draw together some of the threads of my thinking. In this post, I want to return to one  thread.

"In economic and population terms", I then wrote, "Australia is a small rich country perched on the edge of the Asian land mass.

In population terms, we presently rank around 53 in the world. In economic terms, 14 or 15th. In military terms, the combination of our wealth with access to technology makes us something of a regional super power.

On current ABS projections, the Australian population in 2051 is projected to increase to between 30 and 40 million people. While this is a large increase in absolute terms, we still drop sharply in global population rankings.

We will also drop sharply in economic ranking.The process here will be a little slower in terms of country rankings because of the big gap between Australian GDP and that holding in countries behind us.

Of more importance, the gap between our GDP and the countries in front of us is likely to widen very sharply. We may retain our nominal place in the G20, but our share of world GDP is likely to fall from the current level of around 1.4% to below 1%.

In military terms, we are going to struggle to maintain a military edge as other countries catch up in technological terms."

Nothing has changed since I wrote this, although the subsequent mining boom has somewhat concealed the economic and demographic trends, at least in our own minds. The country's relative decline in population and GDP rankings is underway, while our ability to maintain a military edge is certainly under a degree of threat.    . .
In 2009, I suggested that this basic pattern had driven Australian trade, foreign and defence policy. I also thought that successive Australian Governments have been quite clever in these areas and especially in trade policy.

At one level, we had worked for freer global trade, while also establishing a growing network of free trade agreements that reflects the dynamics of future world economic power. The Australian Government's greater emphasis on Africa - previously the ignored continent - was the latest building block. From this point, I thought that our life was likely to get a lot more complicated. How we handled those complications would be very important to our future as a nation.

Life has indeed got a lot more complicated! From my perspective, I did not expect the effects of the global financial crisis to linger in the way they have. I completely failed to foresee the Arab Spring with its subsequent domino effects, including the rise of ISIS. I did not expect that terrorism would, once again, become such a dominant theme,

In March 2009, I chose to write about four issues.

The first was the likely Pacification of Australia.

Australia used to think of itself as a Pacific Country, but then we started to ignore the Pacific as our focus shifted to Asia. This was a mistake, one that the Howard Government had to struggle to correct.

Absolute population numbers in the Pacific are not high in absolute terms. However, they are high relative to the populations of Australia and especially New Zealand. They are also growing quite fast. By 2050, there is likely to be one Papuan for every three of the then Australian population.

Australia, I suggested, had a powerful vested interest in the resolution of Pacific problems. If we failed, we were going to face powerful pressures on our borders. Even with success, we were still going to see a rapid rise in the absolute numbers of Melanesians and Polynesians living in Australia.

I should note that I had no problem with this. Apart from my dislike of the way Australia had forgotten its Pacific heritage, my underlying concern lay in the the way that evolving problems especially in PNG might have wash-on effects in this country. I am actually less concerned about this one than I was, although it remains an issue.  

The second issue was the importance of ASEAN.

ASEAN is critical to us along three dimensions; it sits across key trade routes; it is Australia's northern strategic buffer; and it is a key economic partner. The successful development of and relations with the ASEAN countries and especially Indonesia was arguably, I thought,  the key strategic issue from an Australian perspective.

I give Australia a fail here. We have literally lost sight of ASEAN. We do not have a coherent policy, at least one that I can understand, for dealing with our nearest neighbors as a group.  

The third issue I identified was the need to find a balance in our evolving relations with the US, China, Japan and India. This was seen as perhaps the key strategic issue, although I would still have placed ASEAN first from a longer term perspective. The need for this balance is still a continuing meme in Australian foreign policy.

The last issue was the need to avoid Australian hubris and arrogance.

As I had commented in some of my posts on Mr Rudd, I got very uncomfortable when I saw an Australian leader big-noting this country. Among other things, this played to a continued inward looking prejudice within the Australian community about our superiority and place in the world.

I would, I suggested, feel far more comfortable if our approach were more low key, displaying greater recognition of the need to be subtle and clever if we were to properly manage the challenges we faced as a country.

What can I say? I would mark this area as a double F.For time reasons, I will deal with this in another post.  

Mr Modi and the complexities of Australia's current position

This wasn't quite the way I intended to go in this post. So much has been happening that I have had several goes at posts. This is part of Parramatta's Indian community waiting for Indian Prime Minister's Modi visit.

The events of the last few days in Australia deserve serious analysis, but it's hard not to be sidetracked by it all. The financial press in particular has gone absolutely crazy, attracted not so much by the theater as the smell of cash. That's one area where a corrective is required.

Australia's Indian population is around 400,000. Around 16,000 gathered to hear the Indian PM speak to the local Indian population. This shot is part of the 5,000 or so who gathered outside the stadium, they could not fit in.

I wondered how Mr Modi's visit would be covered in India. Quite well, if these stories are any guide - here, here, here.Perhaps Ramana can give us a guide from an Indian perspective.

One of the interesting but complicated things to my mind was just how Australia fits in strategic terms to the geopolitical issues surrounding the G20 and the associated summits.

I am not sure that I can put this clearly, but just at present the country seems to be in a useful but very complicated sweet spot. Not big enough to be a military threat to anyone, but big enough to be a potentially useful ally in a remarkably complex Asia-Pacific strategic mix.

Staying with Mr Modi, these are some of the 200 Indians who came up by train from Melbourne to attend his speech.

I said the strategic mix was complex. It really is,

We have to balance the US and China. Japan and Korea are major trading partners with their own strategic concerns. India has its own complicated relations with China. Indonesia and ASEAN are critical to Australia's immediate interests.

I will write up some of my thoughts on key issues, if only to clarify my thinking. For the moment, it's just interesting watching developments and trying to work out how the bits might fit together,

Postscript

In this post I said:

I am not sure that I can put this clearly, but just at present the country seems to be in a useful but very complicated sweet spot. Not big enough to be a military threat to anyone, but big enough to be a potentially useful ally in a remarkably complex Asia-Pacific strategic mix.

Today's Australian Financial Review mirrors this point.

• Rory Metcalf (Lowy Institute): For better or worse, the region has finally found us
• Editorial: Australia takes on a new standing
• Kerry Brown (Professor, University of Sydney): Hard objectives come wrapped up in flattery

And so it goes on.

Defining shirtfronting

I must admit that I did not know what shirtfronting meant when Mr Abbott used it in the context of Mr Putin. I am obliged to the ABC for this definition:

For the Shirtfront (Australian Rules) noun, "A fierce tackle, usually delivered by the shoulder to the chest of an opponent." verb, "The act of delivering such a tackle." - Oxford Australian Dictionary.

The ABC story linked above has some video clips of the now banned shirtfronting in practice. The Russian local diplomatic response can be found here. Mr Abbott has not repeated the term, referring instead to possible robust discussions. PUP Senator Jacqui Lambie takes a dim view of the whole thing, praising Mr Putin’s “great values”.

There is an air of unreality about the Australian discussion. This includes Opposition leader Shorten who wishes that the Government could have done more to prevent Mr Putin attending the Brisbane G20 summit. Yes, Australia’s political leaders need to reflect local concerns, but that also needs to be tempered with a degree of reality.

Sunday Snippets – the Ukraine

Today’s post is a follow up to Has war with Russia become inevitable? This drew a number of comments.

Anon wrote:

I think the rhetoric about Putin has gotten way out of hand. Hitler killed hundreds of thousands of people when invading Ukraine. Putin has the military power to reduce Kiev to a smoking crater and has decided on non lethal options.

kvd wrote;

Well fwiw these are my further thoughts on what has happened and maybe what could happen to cool this crisis.

1. Putin saw the weakening of a Ukraine government which was friendly towards Russia as a direct threat to his naval forces in the Black Sea. For his own internal reasons he cannot afford to have that asset under threat.

2. (Not talking about the initial demos, more the violent step-up before it ended): It would not surprise me to read eventually that the violence in Kiev was Russian-inspired/instigated because, although Putin lost a weak ally, he took from that the needed excuse to 'protect' his people in the east - for which actually read 'his naval base'.

3. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for a guarantee of its territory.

4. A possible mutually acceptable solution might be for Ukraine to cede to Russia the land containing the naval installations, to achieve the situation now existing in Cuba for the US. (please don't lecture me on the history of that place; I get it)

5. In return, Russia and the West would formally acknowledge Ukraine as 'neutral' - see Switzerland. This would have huge economic benefits to all sides of this conflict.

All that said, much like you, Jim, I see confrontation now verging on the inevitable - but as to if that becomes a 'hot' war, or simply harsh economic sanctions, who knows?

I come back to a comment I made on your earlier post: Putin will do exactly what he says because he cannot afford not to - and that is his major bargaining chip. He needs to gain something out of this. They need to give him a way out which can't be mistaken for a step backwards.

He followed up with:

Also, I think this analysis is worth a read - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/10700292/Why-China-is-right-on-the-future-of-Ukraine.html  - even tho the author dismisses a sanctions approach.

And last thought: isn't it funny that we have Putin defending the overthrown democratically elected government, and now promoting a referendum, while the US and the rest are firmly behind the 'revolution' involving some pretty dismal sorts?

Ramana wrote:

If you are a betting man, I will wager that nothing will happen. There will be a lot of huffing and puffing and noise and it will all eventually die down. Yes, even the sanctions. Just watch the Brits. They are the guys who will miss out on big commissions and see how they have reacted so far. No noise at all from the suits there. Ukraine will say, thank God Crimea left and the Russians will have to foot big bills in subsidies to the Crimean part of the new dispensation. It will all work out fine eventually.

Orby Wrightville said...

Excuse me but just who is going to go to war with Russia over this?

To which Neville responded:

Orby, I think you are right. I would favour also ceding Finland, and Poland and any country ending with 'ia' and 'stan' as well.

Let's simplify the map; there maybe only three colours then required! Anything to appease.

Over at skepticslawyers, Lorenzo’s Built-in Imperialism: an era of farcical return provides that writer’s historical perspective. Meantime, I went searching for a Ukrainian source on all this and found the Kyviv Post.

Reading the Kyviv Post reminded me of the complexity of all this in human terms in a world of complex interlinks: the Ukrainian migrant workers in Russia; the teachers now not being paid in Crimea; the progressive Russian sanctions (they began before all this) on Ukrainian businesses in Russia; the paperwork involved in Crimea as you have to re-register ownership of key assets; the collapse of payments systems; the reshaping of possible gas supplies within Europe.

And where might those gas supplies come from? Australia, at least in part.

Sunday Essay - determining who will live or die

These poems come to me from Helen Dale aka skepticlawyer. The first is from Marya Mannes, a US author that I had not heard of.

Borders are scratched across the
hearts of men
By strangers with a calm, judicial
pen,
And when the borders bleed we
watch with dread
The lines of ink across the map
turn red.

It's just so true.

The second poem comes from W.H Auden. It, too, is just so true.

Unbiased at least he was
when he arrived on his mission,
Having never set eyes on this
land he was called to partition
Between two peoples fanatically
at odds,
With their different diets and
incompatible gods.
"Time," they had briefed him in
London, "is short. It's too late
For mutual reconciliation or
rational debate:
The only solution now lies in
separation ..."

"The Viceroy thinks, as you will
see from his letter,
That the less you are seen in his
company the better,
So we've arranged to provide you
with other accommodation.
We can give you four judges, two
Moslem and two Hindu,
To consult with, but the final
decision must rest with you."

Shut up in a lonely mansion, with
police night and day
Patrolling the gardens to keep
the assassins away,
He got down to work, to the task
of settling the fate
Of millions. The maps at his
disposal were out of date
And the Census Returns almost
certainly incorrect,
But there was no time to check
them, no time to inspect.

I don't share the views expressed in the current attacks on the British Empire and Commonwealth. They are, to my mind, simplistic and stereotyped. On balance, the Empire was a good thing that shaped the modern world.

I could wish that the British Government had fought harder to preserve the Indian Empire, to buy time, to give time, to the Indian factions to work out their differences in a new world that had been progressively evolving over so many decades. It was a tired Government, a broke Government, that just wanted out. Give them want they want now, clean up, we must move on.

An uncle of mine was in India at the time and saw the bodies piled in the river beds. A true Indiaphile with a deep knowledge of Indian history and culture, he loved the place, he understood the religious divisions. Running for Liberal party pre-selections in Sydney in the late 1960s, he told the bemused branch members that the Muslim challenge would become a dominant theme in global politics. He wasn't anti-Muslim, although he was (I think) pro-Hindu. Rather, he saw a clash of irreconcilables. I just filed it away, something for later use.

There is something cold and sad in that Auden poem. Here you have a person who must do his job regardless of poor evidence, who must deliver. Don't think it doesn't happen today. It does. Policy is about people, policy analysis is about statistics. 

This is something I wrote in a seminar paper a few years back:  

By the 1970s, country was losing favour, in part because of the growth of urban centres whose residents did not identify with the term. In its place came the word regional. This fragmented in turn. By 2000, there was something of a crazy patchwork quilt of words – country, regional, rural, remote, coastal – that overlapped and were used in different combinations. This growing confusion in terms reflected in part the increasing use of ARIA.

ARIA, the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia, was developed by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care and the National Key Centre for Social Applications of GIS. ARIA measures remoteness based on the physical road distance between a settlement and four classes of service centre[1]. In 1999 a further revision of ARIA called ARIA+ was developed that incorporated more information on the location of service centres.

While ARIA was a simple geographic descriptor intended to measure remoteness from services, its widespread use by the Commonwealth Government for statistical purposes and to guide service delivery affected the use of words. In 1950, the Australian states still retained a substantial degree of independence. By 2000, the Australian Government was involved in every aspect of policy once the preserve of the states. To the officials in Canberra seeking mechanisms to allow for national uniformity in service delivery while also taking geography into account, the ARIA classifications seemed a useful device; very remote, remote, outer regional, inner regional and major city were now firmly added to the semantic mix.

The difficulty from a New England perspective lay in the way that these various terms cut across the area’s natural geography, further fragmenting the sense of New England or Northern identity, while creating problems for integrated service delivery based on geography. We can see this if we look at New England’s Kamilaroi or Gamilaraay Aboriginal language group who occupied the Western Slopes and Plains. Their traditional territory was variously classified from very remote to inner regional, a classification that affected the services provided. People with a common culture sharing common problems received different benefits depending on just where they lived.

In the global scheme of things, this is a minor example. Yet the decisions made based on statistical constructs, on evidence that is old or uncertain, determines what happens. The question of whether or not an Aboriginal family has a house or not depending on their ARIA classification is a minor thing compared with those who lost their lived during the partition of the Indian Empire, yet the principles are the same.

I really shuddered when I read the Aulden poem. It captures stark reality. Everyday, international civil servants and others make decisions that affect who will live or die.  That's a dreadful burden often confused in the statistics.     

---

[1] History and definitions of ARIA drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Glossary of Statistical Geography Terminology 2011, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1217.0.55.001, accessed on-line 15 March 2011.