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.

Yesterday the UN Security Council voted to tighten the sanctions on Iran over its refusal to halt its nuclear program. The resolution was sponsored by Britain, France and Germany, and all except Indonesia (who abstained) voted to support it. This comes almost a full year since the last batch of sanctions. The sanctions mainly include travel bans on a few key individuals and other bans on trade and assistance with a few organisations involved in the nuclear program, but none of it is very hard stuff, calling on states to "exercise vigilance" when dealing with Iran (but thats the way UN resolutions go).

This third round of sanctions comes in the wake of the latest IAEA report on the 22nd of Feb. Strangely though, this report was not all together negative about the situation in Iran and Iran's cooperation with the Agency. The IAEA is satisfied Iran isnt diverting materials, and the main concerns are with any form of past weaponisation programs, including in particular high explosives testing. The main issue in any look at a future Iranian weapons program is still undeclared material and facilities, but so far "the Agency has no concrete information" that they exist. The report concludes that Iran is cooperating in providing information in an ad hoc manner.

None of this is really that different to past IAEA reports, so why did the sanctions pass now? Past talk of sanctions by the US and others had always been shot down by other members of the Security Council. A theory thats been floated around about the renewed international pressure on Iran goes back to last years NIE, which concluded that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, and probably hasnt since at least 2004. At the time that was hailed as a victory for Iran, and one of its major effects was to rule out US military action to halt any Iranian nuclear program, which was looking increasingly likely at the time. But ruling out military action has freed up other actors to pressure Iran without fear of inadvertantly authorising any US military strike (as was retroactively applied in the case of Iraq).

I think this can go some way to explaining the recent changes in policies towards the Iran issue, particularly Russia who is still pretty close to Iran.

162. "Labor considers that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems is one of the most serious international security issues confronting the world today. Labor considers effective efforts to combat these developments require sustained multilateral, diplomatic and defence cooperation and action.

163. Labor is concerned that as a unilateral response to the problem of ballistic missile proliferation, national missile defence is disproportionate, technically questionable, costly and likely to be counterproductive. It also has the potential to undermine non-proliferation and derail world progress towards nuclear disarmament. Labor also notes that national missile defence would impact on the security situation in the Asia Pacific region, and that this could have serious consequences for Australia's strategic circumstances and national security.

164. Labor is committed to ensuring that all efforts are made to protect ADF personnel deployed on operations. Labor supports the development of capability for in-theatre defence of ADF personnel and key strategic interests from ballistic missile attack."

The first two points make perfect sense and are a completely rational policy to follow. (clearly the third point is stupid, as you cant just ignore the strategic implications of BMD and consider it an 'in theatre' instrument).

BUT, winning government has the strange ability to push previously well thought and reasoned policy out the window. Now, The Age reports that Foreign Minister Stephen Smith (Is he really the best they could find?) is considering some Australian role in the US project. 

The first few questions would be, what sort of role?

But, then you would have to ask why? Smith argued in a previous Age article that his opposition to Missile Defence was based on purely technical grounds. But what has really changed? And how have the arguements of the ALPs national conference less than a year ago changed?

North Asian BMD is supposedly meant to counter a missile threat from North Korea. First of all, Pyongyang probably doesnt really have the capability to hit any Australian territories (and why would they waste scarce resources in hitting Darwin anyway?) Secondly, any North Korean threat would not need Australian involvement, as a couple of ships in the Sea of Japan could probably take care of it. Thirdly, it is really expensive for very little reward (besides pleasing the US). Fourthly, the technology is not entirely certain or reliable, and many simple measures (such as decoys) could theoretically evade such a system. 

And finally, we return to the strategic concerns hinted to in the 2007 conference. They certainly havent changed, and Missile defence, in Asia and Europe, is still one of the most destabilising factors in international politics and arms control today. 

Why should Australia risk worsening strategic stability and the relationship with China (the more likely target of Asian BMD) for a system that we arent needed for, is expensive, and probably wont even work?

Tommorrow we can finally end this uninteresting and soundbite-filled election campaign and well finally know if Kevin07 is really as popular as those polls suggest. My money is on a narrow Howard victory. People are too conservative, and apathetic, to affect a real change of government. Not that it would really be much of a change.

What I would have liked to have seen is some real division, some interesting debate, and more wacky and embarrassing situations and events, such as Tony Abbots "thats bullshit" to Roxon a couple of weeks ago. More importantly I would have liked to have seen some focus and debate over issues of actual importance. The majority of the election promise funding, for both parties, will go to tax cuts. How about some real investment in services and infrastructure rather than giving the upper bracket an extra few grand each year. The tax cuts are based on promoting choice for the public to choose where to spend their money, but with no public investment that choice becomes a forceful push into private service providers over the government. Both parties are run by the elite, so they can only ever represent elite interests.

Where was a real dabe about Iraq? Or Afghanistan? We even had a couple of Australian soldiers killed during the campaign but nobody major really questioned how right it was for them to be there in the first place. There was also little substantial talk on nuclear proliferation and power. Where would either party stand in the event of a US led attack on Iran? Would Rudd go 'all the way with GWB' like Howard in Iraq? Do we need to continue acting as a semi-colony to the US under either government? Howard also played down his nuclear power proposal, letting 'commercial factors' decide if it will ever take place. He knows it cant operate without government support, so what is really going to happen? Whats Labors policy on exporting Uranium? A clearance sale like the Coalition, or are we actually going to get serious about proliferation and use our biggest weapon against it?

But despite all this, I still think it is worth voting, and that a Labor government would (just) be the lesser evil. Hopefully interesting candidates such as Andrew Wilke can get in. Maybe Team Rudd can stop being so Howardesque and Garret can go back to his political roots a little after the election, whoever wins.  

At least this parade of the political class will end, and maybe theres even a chance things might get shaken up a bit!

Seeing that its a monday, and the real version finished last week (why does it ever finish?) I'll do my own review of the weekend news, mostly The Age. First of all, the Sunday newspapers are shit, so I wont really bother looking at them. Second of all, The Herald Sun isn't as bad as every one says it is, considering that its only a tabloid anyway. at least it gets the facts right most of the time, even if the editorial is a little skewed.

Thirdly, most importantly, The Age is a mixed bag. While the opinion articles are usually quite good. There is some actual range of opinion, and regular writers, such as economics editor Kenneth Davidson, or Robert Manne, are consistently good. Waleed Aly's article in Saturdays Age, 'Too tough for our own good', on the war on terror, was fantastic, and I recommend it. (I would link to it, but I can't find it anywhere)

However, The same mistakes The Age made in supporting the war on Iraq in 2003 are being made right now. Marko Beljac has already made a few (justified) complaints against the Age here and here, and now they're at it again over Iran's Nuclear program. While some of the Age's writers are probably completely rational, a few others a clearly pushing for war.

The story in Saturdays Age was titled 'Iran a Year off nuclear warhead, says UN'. Now this is serious bullshit being peddled out here. Firstly it was the IAEA that said it, not the UN, although it is considered a UN watchdog, so that can be excused. Secondly, and most importantly, that is not what the report stated, and it is not even what the story itself stated. The story goes...

"The installation of 3000 functioning centrifuges at Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz is a "red line" drawn by the US across which Washington had said it would not let Iran pass. When spinning at full speed they can produce enough weapons-grade uranium (enriched to more than 90% purity) for a nuclear weapon within a year..."

Clearly that does not mean that Iran will, or even can, have a warhead within a year. There is alot more to building a nuclear warhead than having the Uranium for it, and currently Iran does not even have that. Then a delivery vehicle is even more trouble on top of that. Clearly TheAge is not too concerned that its readers get the correct impression as to what is actually happening in Iran, only that they get what the editors consider the 'right' impression. The impression that lead to war. 

All the current discussion in The Age and elsewhere rests on the dubious assuption that Iran WANTS a nuclear weapon, and is ACTUALLY pursuing it. As I have blogged about before, this is based on nothing, and leads to irrational and alarmist assumptions like these.

The article seemingly attempts to discredit the parts of the IAEA report that document Iran's cooperation with the agency by attributing them to 'Russian officials' rathet than looking at the report itself. It also waits until the end to mention that the 3000 centrifuges are not even up and running properly yet, so at the current rate the supposed warhead is very far away. 

The article was taken from a Guardian story by Julian Borger which was titled 'Decision time for US over Iran threat', which is editorialising enough in labelling Iran a threat, but is not as bad as The Age's take on the issue. 

Within the current international political climate, with the US persistently pushing for strong action, including war, against Iran, it is dangerous and reckless for The Age, supposedly the paper for progressive opinion, to be arguing a line like this one. The Age seems determined to provide assitance to those trying to convince us that war is necessary, has it learnt nothing from the invasion of Iraq? 

How may poeple have to be killed, and how much larger must the conflict in the Middle East get before The Age will stop supporting these imperialist advenures?

Apologies for the juvenile title of this post, but the recent awarding of the 'prestigious' Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore just highlights how little this prize represents anything to do with peace.

Al Gore joins a long list of Nobel Peace Prize winners such as Henry Kissinger (1973), the man responsible for the deaths of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Palestinians, and approved the violent takeover of societies such as Chile and East Timor as US Secretary of State. 

Other equally worthy recipients of the prize include-

1919- Woodrow Wilson, whose 'idealism' would be fondly remembered by his Caribbean neighbours.
1970- Norman Borlaug, who's 'Green revolution' has contributed to the deaths of millions of peasants worldwide.
1978- Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat and Israeli PM Menachem Begin ( need I say more).
1994- Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin (see above).
2002- Jimmy Carter, who laid the groundwork for Reagan's neoliberalism and crimes in Central America.

Al Gore joins this prestigious list of 'peacemakers' along with the UN International Governmental Panel on Climate Change.

Firstly, the Peace Prize is supposed to have something to do with Peace, and while Al Gore's efforts are indeed commendable, they don't really seem to involve any peacemaking.

And secondly, if you have heard of Al Gore before 'An Inconvenient Truth', then you probably know something about the fact he was Vice-President under Clinton.

During these years, Gore showed himself to be a friend to oil companies, and achieved nothing for the environment or climate change. But, what he achieved in other areas was substantial. The War on Drugs that was responsible for the deaths and impoverishment of thousands of Colombians. Sanctions and occasional bombing raids on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands, mostly children. Continuing support for Israeli actions in the occupied territories. NATO bombings in former Yugoslavia.  The enactment of NAFTA. All this among the thousands of other victims of the Clinton era.

Al Gore can hardly be considered to be a peacemaker in any sense of the word, judging by his history. Now that he has little state power he is a nice guy, but as Vice President he was the complete opposite. 

The Nobel Peace Prize committee has put itself to shame once again.

Would US interests be served by democratisation in the Middle East?

American interests in the strategically important Middle East would largely not be served by any real democratization. Many argue that US interests would be assisted, however there is little evidence that terrorism or strategic cooperation in the region would be improved through democratization efforts.

The idea that democratization in the Middle East would help combat terrorism gained in strength after the September 11 attacks in the US. It became a major part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq after the total lack of weapons of mass destruction became apparent. The idea was that Iraq would become a shining beacon of democracy, which would inspire a wave of democratization over the region.

Undemocratic and repressive regimes can breed terrorism, and political repression can radicalize opponents and create extremists. The argument follows that a democratic system could enable peaceful reconciliation of grievances, allow peaceful channels for dissent, and provide inclusion in policy making for marginalized groups. A democratic system can arguably work better to respond to other causes of terrorism, such as poverty and social divisions.

However there is little real evidence that this theory holds true, as recent democratisation efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are a testament to. Democratic systems also have not stopped terrorist groups becoming active throughout Western Europe and the US in the past. Terror organizations often do not have much widespread appeal, therefore are unlikely to gain power through democratic processes, so why would they respect the system? Why would a terror organisation hold the ideal of democracy above previous goals? An efficient authoritarian regime is also arguably better able to deal effectively with a terrorist threat than a democracy.

The second and most important problem for US interests in the region is that if Middle Eastern governments were actually representative of public opinion, they would be overwhelmingly against the US. A democratic Middle East would produce governments less likely to cooperate with the US than the current Authoritarian ones. The problem for democracy in the Middle Eastern states is not that the people do not want democracy, but that the USA would not like the results. Some argue that democracy would benefit the US, as authoritarian regimes can have trouble submitting to US wishes because of public opposition, but by definition that would only get worse if those governments had to listen to their people. Democratic systems would also most likely bring Islamic parties to power, which the US has not shown a preference for, as they often form the only organized political force besides the government. A democratic Iraq, with a Shiite majority, would also most likely move for closer ties with Iran, which the US could not allow. If the US were serious about democracy and respecting public opinion within Iraq they would have withdrawn by now.

The limited versions of democracy that exist in the Middle East often result in anti-US victories, and are largely condemned by the US because of their outcomes. Iran has limited political participation and restricted elections, with the anti-American Ahmadinejad elected from a controlled list in 2005. More recently the Palestinian territories experienced democratic elections, with the Anti-US Hamas gaining power, which resulted in US led sanctions.

Democracy promotion for the USA is a strategic tool, and is subsequently focused on enemies such as Iran and Syria, rather than allies such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt. There is little pressure upon America’s autocratic allies to democratize, and they continue to obtain strong US support. Undemocratic US allies such as Musharraf in Pakistan and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan receive strong US support as they assist the US on their democratisation mission in Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia is an intensely totalitarian state, the main ally of the US in the region, and the linchpin of US regional hegemony. There is massive popular resentment against the Saudi regime, and its main supporter the USA. The US has put some limited pressure on the Saudi monarchs to democratize, and an election was held for local councils. It was restricted to male voters and approved candidates, and only half the council seats were open to election, with the others appointed by the regime. This miniscule step was praised by the US, and business went on as usual.

A similar case exists with Egypt, where Mubarak has ruled for over 25 years, and is a close US ally. Subject to political pressure he ran an election of pre-approved candidates in September 2005. The election was conducted in rounds, meaning if the first few rounds weren’t going his way he could rig it even further or just call it off. Mubarak triumphed in this engineered election and was commended by the US, but the semi-legal anti-US Muslim Brotherhood emerged as his main opposition. This resulted in a considerable cooling down of US pressure to democratize.