![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
I'm lazy, and will soon be overseas for a few weeks, so the blog is now (officially) dead.
One last word, Team Rudd has well and truly proven itself incompetent and full of dickheads this year. For some reason I still have a vain hope that 'Brand Obama' wont do the same...
Hope this year works out better than the last.
Its being discussed at the NSG right now, and it is very telling of the Rudd government that the first serious nuclear proliferation act taken since the launch of the 'Evans Commission' has been to agree to (and even lobby other governments) for a clean exemption for India at the NSG.
What a joke.
This is old news now, but first of all, it was interesting to see most people over 30 very quickly returned to cold war mindsets as soon as Russia invaded Georgian territory a couple of weeks ago. The fact it was sparked by the Georgian invasion of a disputed province didn’t seem to matter, because as far as many were concerned, it was Russia reasserting control over the former Soviet bloc states. That is an important aspect, but we also need to remember that these provinces are disputed, so the situation is closer to a hypothetical Serbian invasion of Kosovo than any cold war era military intervention. Do you think the US and other western states would act differently if Serbia did retake Kosovo in a similar fashion to what Georgia attempted? Interestingly, as another blog pointed out (I can’t remember which), if you consider both Georgia and Russia democracies, which they loosely are, then this scenario blows the democratic peace theory out of the water.
Now to the Australia Russia Uranium deal in The Age today. Apparently our idiot Foreign Minister Smith has raised the prospect of blocking the deal on the basis of Russia’s recent actions in Georgia. This is a clear demonstration of the mindset I've just mentioned. The authors Flitton and Nicholson don’t offer any context for the conflict, stating only that "...Russian troops crossed into the disputed Georgian territories..." This is journalists following the policy line of the state. It’s such blatant pandering to western state interests that they even throw in fears of Russia selling on Australian Uranium to Syria, whose nuclear program consists of a research reactor under IAEA safeguards. This represents yet another blatant toeing of the Washington line by The Age.
However such issues should be virtually irrelevant to the uranium agreement, and it seems that another Labor MP, chair of the committee on treaties Kelvin Thompson, has got to the point and said that the main reason we should not be selling to Russia is the risk that they could then sell it on to third parties. Thompson seems like a smart guy, and even suggested that we consider waiting until after the 2010 NPT review conference to consider ratifying the deal. There is a particular fear that Aus could be sold on to states such as Iran and this is indeed a legitimate fear. But again Smith outs himself as a fool by claiming that the safeguards aren’t the issue, they already prevent this. today featured a story on the proposed Australian export of uranium to Russia, which now apparently
I'm currently really busy with a history subject, studying under Robert manne, and working with ICAN. So for the time being, I'm wondering who actually come to this blog? apparently there are people other than me, so...
(Update: Apparently I dont know how to make polls...)
Adding another book to my proposed resources section, Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon. One of the 20th Century's greatest political novels, it offers an interpretation of Stalinism and the Russian Revolution, and also an explanation to his contemporary questions of why prominent communists confessed in Stalin's show trials of the 1930s.
The novel deals with the revolution and the revolutionary state created under Stalin, and the two competing ethics of revolutionary communism versus individual morality. I tend to side with the Rubashov of the final chapters, when finally refuses to seperate the ends from the means, which is one of the central points of the novel. I think this quote from Ferdinand Lassalle (also in the novel) sums it up more concisely than Koestler,
"Show us not the aim without the way.
For ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too;
Each different path brings other ends in view"
Im not sure that Darkness is a refutation of revolutions on the whole, as some suggest, but it is certainly a denouncement of the crimes of Stalinism and Soviet Communism from someone who knew them well.
One of the best political novels I've read.
Last Tuesday marked one year since this blog came into existence. When I started it, I really didn't imaging it would still be stumbling along at this point. There have been a few extended periods without any posts, but I think there were more than 100 posts over the year, some of which actually said something worthwhile. Even more surprising, that people (other than me) actually visited.
I went to a Friends of the Earth meeting the other day, and I urge everyone who can to get involved in the protests against the Asia-Pacific Defence and Security Exhibition. You can keep up to date with activist info here. Australia's role in the global military industrial complex is big enough already, we dont need to put even more money into promoting it now.
The great thing about having a blog is that you can just vent about almost any issue you want.
Most La Trobe University students really need to learn some realism. I dont mean the Morgenthau etc theoretical arguments, that I dont entirely follow, just some practical realities of the international system as it exists today. Discussing international law today, specifically criminal law and enforcement, some students were outraged that the leadership of the Khmer Rouge would face a criminal trial, while it was 'the Americans' that devastated the countryside of both Cambodia and Vietnam in the 1970s. Are they arguing that one sided justice is worse than no justice at all? I would rather have the powerful criminals stay untouched while the weak criminals face justice than neither of them face justice at all. It is unrealistic and stupid to expect the most powerful state to simply hand over its leadership to face a criminal trial, or hand over any jurisdiction to such a body that they could not control. Anyone who believes they should needs to go back to watching Today Tonight.
It is very fashionable today to issue blanket anti-US statements that arent based on facts, just emotion. Most La Trobe students also need some perspective on international humanitarian issues. While I dont agree with arguments from neoconservatives about Americas global mission, or Hitchens style arguments about US moral superiority. But, people are way too ready to argue that because the US is the most powerful state, it means it is responsible for everything, and is the source of all evil in the world. I might be inadvertantly attacking alot of the people I agree with, and even my own arguments here, but the US is not the Great Satan that many make it out to be. It sounds contrived, but the world could probably have a worser hegemon than the USA. In saying that, the US is not some sort of overwhelming force for good, and has done bad things. but that doesnt mean we should lose sight of all the other criminals across the globe. The events at Abu Grahib were horrendous, but on par with a deliberate and systematic genocide? No.
A lecturer today made the argument that the 20th Century's 'return to barbarism' means that the US is in effect responsible for the September 11 attacks. Wouldnt a more rational argument be that September 11 is an example of barbaric acts? She was talking as if there was nothing wrong with the act itself, that attacking civilians is justified because of the barbarism of the USA. How can someone arguing against barbarism, argue that a barbaric act is justified? If killing the 'innocent' people in the WTC is justified, then surely the firebombing that signals the beginning of this renewed barbarism was justified too?
As a disclaimer, I consider myself to be almost as left as the come, but some of the unintelligent and un-thought through arguments of many others on the left really discredits some of the more intelligent ones. I know many of the arguments I have made here are not prime examples of great argument (and I contradict myself within this very post, guess where!), and I probably sound quite elitist in arguing this point of view. You may even consider me part of the supposed unintelligent left. As Chomsky argues, intellectuals have a responsibility to criticise and denounce the crimes of their own side, but when this leaves behind reasonable argument and appeals purely to emotion it will never prove an effective check on the abuse of power.
"There are corporations who want to donate to political parties... thats a good thing, that's a sign of a healthy democracy"
A series of interesting stories were featured in GSN today. It is a pretty good oveview of strategic security news, though US focused.
First of all, it looks like Indian PM Singh has finally got the support he needs for the 123 agreement with the US. This is pretty important, as there was a distinct possibility that the deal would expire with the end of the Bush term. The socialists have finally come around to the deal, which was highly favourable to India anyway. Now we wait to see how Australia will act in the NSG and afterwards.
It also looks like the Czech republic is about to sing the deal with the US on deploying the missile defence radar on their territory. Apparently there is also a possibility that Poland will sign off on the deal to host the missile interceptors. This sort of thing is obviously going to piss off Russia, as it is directed at their missile arsenal. The fact it is in former Warsaw Pact states only makes it worse, it is just a continuation of the US offensives of the 90s, as they moved in on Russia's former territory. The accompanying expansion of NATO was a similar thing. This percieved domination of Russia is still a sore spot, and aspects of Putin's presidency can almost be seen as a reaction to this period.
The report also highlights the fact that Russia and the US agree on points such as Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs. The established nuclear powers dont want any others to join the game. Thats what drove the creation of the NPT, and what is driving some in their push for nuclear disarmament. The focus on non-proliferation is obviously driven by this, but the push for disarmament also to some extent wishes to cement the current strategic status. The US would still be the most powerful military in the world without nukes, and they would also have one less threat, and strategic equaliser, to worry about.
</lj-embed>
The first video is the destruction of the cooling tower at Yongbyon. Pretty cool hey? The second is the new City and Colour clip for Sleeping Sickness. Also pretty cool.
Seeing as I generally have been too tired/unmotivated to post anything substantial recently, I'm just going to list the reading I have/am/plan on getting done over the next couple of weeks. I would do amazon links like everyone else seems to do, but you can do that yourself.
Thomas Frank: Whats the Matter with Kansas. I read it for Uni, but interesting and probably worth reading independent of that anyway. If your interested in US domestic politics.
Graham Greene: The Quiet American. A really good novel, his melding of the personal and political is excellent.
Joseph Heller: Catch 22.
Rudyard Kipling: Kim.
Securing our Survival (SOS) from IPPNW/ICAN etc. I need to read this for my placement in a few weeks. Its seems really interesting, and also very relevant. Als o some prominent names involved in its writing.
Eric Hobsbawm: The Age of Extremes. Also for Uni, but I have read a little Hobsbawm before and he seems really good.
Hopefully post something more soon.
Out of the frying pan and in to the fire. Last exam was yesterday, and I started into full time work today, apparently. So the plan for more active posting may not come to full fruition. I do still plan for some blogging, and hopefully it will be better than this post. (Hey, it is Friday, I'm allowed to be shit).
The video is The Weakerthans 'Watermark'. Their new album doesnt have the same power as previous efforts, so check out their back catalogue if your interested.
You can check out the latest text of the diplomatic offer to Iran from the P5+1, at ISIS as usual. I'm not sure if this one has been released publicly, but ISIS must be pretty well connected to get all this shit before most others. The basic point of the letter is suspend enrichment, which as I've noted oreviously, is not what Iran wants to do. Basically what the letter states, is that once the International community has "confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature" of the enrichment program, then it will offer support to Iran. But confidence is hard to properly establish, especially when you have a US administration that has already made up its mind.
As ACW has noted, it will be interesting to see how long this coalition against Iran will hold together, especially in light of Bush's aggressive rhetoric regarding 'all options on the table'. Of course they're on the table, but he keeps delibrately reminding us of that for a specific reason. However, such aggressive rhetoric has the potential to scare off allies if they think he is actually going to follow through with it.
We should also note that fnding for RRW has agin been denied by the US congress. However, I will quote the reasons behind this decision,
"Last year, the Administration proposed the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) as the first of a new generation of nuclear warheads. The Administration promotes the advantages of a new design offering better surety, better reliability, and lower yield, but RRW was offered in a vacuum and there was no new strategy behind it. There was no plan for what the weapons were to be used for, how many there were to be, or how they were to be made. So, Congress refused to fund the RRW.
"This year, the Committee again reiterates that before considering funding for most new programs, substantial changes to the existing nuclear weapons complex, or funding for RRW, the following sequence must be completed: First, replacement of the Cold War era strategies with a 21st Century nuclear deterrent strategy sharply focused on today’s and tomorrow’s threats that is capable of serving the national security needs of future Administrations and future Congresses without the need for nuclear testing; second, determination of the size and nature of the nuclear stockpile sufficient to serve that strategy; and finally, determination of the size and nature of the nuclear weapons complex needed to support that future stockpile. Of course, we need to be looking at all three at once, but the decisions have to flow in that order. With no such plan delivered, the fiscal year 2009 bill again denies all funding for RRW. There is no sense in expending the taxpayer’s hard earned dollars absent a clear plan for the complex."
So they weren't rejecting it in principle, just rejecting it right now. They want a new nuclear strategy and mission for US weapons post-Cold War to rationalise and justify the program. They certainly havent rejected the idea. So look forward to it continuing to pop up in the future.
All this talk of the security dilemma and alternative approaches reminds me of good old States Nations and Security in first year. The security dilemma is a systemic problem, that needs a fundamental restructuring of international relations to reach any sort of solution. Clearly removing the threat of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons is a good thing, but more is needed for international security. It's really a shift in the focus of security that is needed, from the state and military to the individual and society as the ultimate aim of security. Something along the lines of 'comprehensive security' or even 'social defence'. This individual security is the sort of thing that recent UN SecGen's have been going on about, with no more than rhetorical support from states.
I kind of don't want to bury my post on Rudd's nuclear commission just yet, but it is Friday.
In a virtual footnote in this article in todays Age, it is hinted at that Australia may pull out of the Globla Nuclear Energy partnership. Science Minister Jim Carr has apparently comfirmed that "cabinet would soon consider the Government's attitude to remaining part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." Australia signed up under Howard, and it is a controversial program, essentially designed to stop the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology beyond the current fuel cycle states, for the purposes of non-proliferation. Read their strategic plan here. It also aims to ensure a secure fuel garuntee (a big issue) and make the most out of nuclear energy reserves. It also therefore maintains the two-tiered nuclear technology system that I have mentioned before.
The clip above is Clann Zu's 'Crashing to the Floor' from their debut Rua. They were an amazing (semi)Melbourne band that broke up a few years ago. The animation is by the lead singer, also check out the video for '5000 more'.
Rudd's proposal for an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament is fantastic news. It looks like we finally have a PM who is going to put non-proliferation and disarmament at the top of the national agenda, and actively work for it in the international arena. I know nuclear weapons NGOs are working hard to influence the construction of this new body, and what exactly will be its main focus. Rudds announcement came after he visited the Hiroshima memorial, the first Australian PM to do so. You can get the text of the Kyoto Uni speech here, but I'm going to pick out a few interesting key parts.
The speech pushed all the wanky Japan-Australia friendship stuff, and also reiterated and clarified Rudd's proposal for the Asia Pacific community (does he have any more of these things up his sleeve?). There was also a strong focus on climate change. The interesting part was his explanation for this nuclear commission.
I definitely like his first point.
"In the past decade, the world has not paid adequate attention to nuclear weapons."
He also states that...
"...we must be committed to the ultimate objective of a nuclear weapons free world"
So this is all a good sign. Unfortunately it is slightly tarred by his references to Iran and North Korea, as if they are the only states that are driving nuclear proliferation. Rudd consistently uses the term non-proliferation ahead of disarmament, and this is a conscious choice. It seems to be a non-proliferation commission first, and a disarmament commission second. Yet these are mutually reinforcing things that can only succeed when they both work together. By focussing on non-proliferation over disarmament, Rudd is ignoring the issue of the NWS arsenals that are one major aspect driving this proliferation.
Rudds renewed emphasis on the NPT is a good thing, he notes that...
"There are two courses of action available to the community of nations: to allow the NPT to continue to fragment; or to exert every global effort to restore and defend the treaty."
This is very true, and the recalcitrence of states in fullfilling their NPT obligations (both NWS and NNWS) is a major force weakening the treaty. Rudd also emphasises the importance of the 2010 review conference. Will it be able to achieve anything were the last couple have failed?
Rudd also outlines some possible courses of recommendation that this commission might adopt, looking at the recommendations made by Schultz/Kissinger/Perry/Nunn, that we should
"-Strengthen the means of monitoring compliance with the NPT – which could be achieved through requiring all NPT signatories to adopt monitoring provisions designed by the IAEA;
-Develop an international system to manage the nuclear fuel cycle – given the growing interest in nuclear energy; and
-Adopt a process to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty into force. "
All seemingly good recommendations. The CTBT and IAEA monitoring are very important and possibly achieveable measures, eventually. But international control of the nuclear fuel cycle is a very interesting question. Will NWS and other nuclear states give up their control of the fuel cycle to prevent others obtaining the same technologies? Or will the proposal be more along the lines of international control for some, and state control for the established nuclear powers. That is the sort of proposal floating around now in relation to Iran's nuclear program. But this would create a two-tiered international system, with developed rich states maintaining control over the energy supplies of poorer ones. This question also applies to the idea of increased IAEA monitoring, would the established NWS have to undergo as extensive monitoring as states such as Iran would? It comes down again to who is percieved as a 'good state'.
And again, this group of recommendations mainly still focus on non-proliferation rather than disarmament.
Lets hope this renewed focus on nuclear weapons will successfully evolve into a wider reaching one than it looks like now, because in order to effectively curb proliferation and the state desire for nukes, we need to reduce their presence in the international system aswell. The growing evidence of the 'second nuclear age' and the nuclear energy renaissance mean that the danger of nuclear weapons is increasing and there is a critical need to combat that threat.
In related news, the press conference after Rudd's speech revealed that he is apparently standing by the Labor policy of no nuclear exports to non-NPT members. This means that India will not be getting Australian uranium, yet it doesnt necessarily change Australia's position at the NSG. I imaging we will still be in the position of giving others the green light to export, while we hold back. A good sign nonetheless.
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX
Imprisoning Children
Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
Therefore time for a half-arsed post on disparate subjects that will only really interest me.
First of all, a quick comment on Rudd's new Asia-Pacific intergovernmental organisation idea. Clearly the EU analogy is purely that, because that sort of structure is unrealistic. The idea sounds good at first thought, as the current world bodies, such as APEC or ASEAN, are not very effective in outcomes and promoting wider cooperation. But is Rudd really blaming the international architecture when the real problem is a lack of political will? Linked to this, it seems way too optimistic that the US, China, Japan and India will all agree to be subject to an international body with real power over them.
Some links. The latest IAEA report on Iran, in case you hadn't had a look yet. The final text of the Cluster munitions convention. Tom Gabel from Against Me! also has his own blog, I feel sick to my stomach, hopefully he keeps it up.
The video above is Soobax, by Somali refugee K'naan. I was going to put the awesome 'In the beginning' up, but there are no good videos. Enjoy.
I also posted earlier some positive signs in the Australian delegation, with the inclusion of two NGO representatives and even the hesitant mention of a NWC. But this post is a bit more cynical of the Rudd position, and I'm hoping that the new governments non-proliferation have not solidified to such a policy. I'm going to be doing some work later in the year promoting the idea of a NWC in relation to the NPT, with an aim to influence government.
The report goes through NGO campaign activities and meetings, which is interesting, but the good stuff starts with the analysis of Australia's position.
While the mention of a NWC is a positive sign, the report notes that this "cautious endorsement" contrasts with the strong support for the idea given by Labor before last years election. Is it further proof the Labor party is happy to endorse non-proliferation while in opposition, but wont come through when it has the power to do something about it?
The Australian delegation also failed to criticise the nuclear weapons states for modernising their arsenals, and could only call for a reduction of the continued role that nuclear weapons play in defence policies. The nuclear weapons states are modernising their arsenals, and in some cases (the US at least) it is claimed that this is in the interests of reducing the overall size of the arsenal. What is really needed is a reduction in the qualitative reliance on these weapons, not quantitative nuclear forces. Nuclear modernisation effectively ensures that nukes will have a place in the defensive postures of the nuclear states for many years to come. The US is also working on lower thresholds for use. They also haven't mentioned the role that nukes play in Australian defence policy.
Australia joined in the criticism of Iran and North Korea, and also questioned Syria (rightly so). But it is pretty easy to criticise Iran and North Korea, while ignoring the nuclear proliferation repercussions of the nuclear programs of allies Israel and the USA. Australia does not even acknowlege that Israel possesses Nuclear weapons (unlike Carter). Helpfully though Australia did express support for the FMCT and CTBT.
Australia also continues to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. This is probably motivated by Australia's role as a major supplier. This growing 'nuclear renaissance' has the potential to create a whole new group of latent nuclear weapons states, and could be destablising for the NPT. I'm not a fan of nuclear power anyway, but this offers a further incentive to use Australia's uranium supplies wisely.
Tim Wright has done a good job, and its great that organisations such as ICAN are putting together reports like this.
It remains to be seen if this is evidence of a weak Rudd government line on nuclear proliferation, or if the Australian government can, and wishes to, become the internationally active and constructive middle power as invisioned by the new PM.
