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. 

So much for that promised Saturday post. I will hopefully blog soon on the latest IAEA report on Iran and also on the relatively successful cluster munitions convention. For now its Australa and non-proliferation. 

An interesting article appeared in The Age a couple of days ago in which it was revealed that Rudd will probably renew and follow one of Howard's policies, again. Before the election, Labor promised that no Australian uranium would go to India, even if the US 123 agreement came through. Stephen Smith had previously said, after cancelling the Howard deal, that 

"We went into the election with a strong policy commitment [that] we would not export uranium to nation states who are not members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." 

Now, it seems that Smith is backflipping on the issue, saying that

"We have made this clear to Indian officials that we are bound by (Labor) party policy," Mr Smith said. "But if the 123 agreement is passed by the Indian parliament, we could consider joining a consensus." 

Which sounds very similar to the Howard government line at the time. 

There has obviously been a lot of pressure on the goverment to change its policy. The US and other nuclear suppliers want, and need, Australian support for the deal in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and domestic uranium interests obviously want another market. 

The nuclear suppliers group is where push comes to shove, if the Rudd government was really serious about non-proliferation then they would not be allowing the sale of nuclear material to a state that is not part of the NPT. This was official labor policy at the national conference. But now Rudd looks like Australia will ok the deal at the NSG, and even go so far to export Australian uranium. This turnaround exposes the Labor oligarchy's real disregard for its members.

Clearly if the Labor government was serious about non-proliferation, it would block this deal, and use our position as one of the largest uranium miners to pursue the goal of non-proliferation, rather than short term profits.

The federal budget was released last week, and it has generated varying criticisms and praise within the media. One of the more important issues is the environment, and the Labor governments policies in regard to climate change and renewable energy. 

First of all, the related issue of petrol prices. Nelson's plan to cut the excise is ridiculous. He would save the average driver around only $84 a year, and cost the government a lot in lost revenue. But more importantly this is a weak populist policy that goes against common sense. Nelson is bowing to popular pressure on the price of living and so on, rather than formulating good policy. A cut in the excise would ony reward those who drive inefficient cars, and punish those who do. The fact it would also reward those who have inadequate access to public transport is a different issue altogether. Nelson has demonstrated himself very willing to bend over under pressure. Lets hope that Rudd doesnt follow a similar plan under his proposed tax review.  

Now to energy supplies. Kenneth Davidson had an excellent article in The Age's opinion pages on Thursday which outlined the problems of energy supplies within the context of global warming. It seems both federal and state governments are happy to let fossil fuels keep on burning as long as they keep turning a profit. The idea of geosequestration that Rudd and Brumby are so eager to invest in will not be able to achieve the massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are needed. Realistically, it is more a good excuse to keep burning coal than a real way to solve the climate change crisis. Geosequestration offers our political and business leaders the chance to keep up business as usual. The problem with geosequestration is not only that it will not be sufficient, but also that it keeps taking government money from other more useful areas of research, such as solar power. 

Now we return to the budget, which offers a good example of this neglect to realistic sources of renewable energy. Rudd and Swan have cut in half the $8000 government solar panel subsidy for households that earn over $100,000. Not only is this killing off the fledgling Solar power industry, but again, it is bad policy. There is no argument for cutting off the government subsidy for any level of income, because the beneficiary of solar power is the environment, and therefore everyone, not any particular household. It is completely different to something like the 'baby bonus' which puts money directly into someone's pocket. Whether this is an ideological attack on apparent middle class welfare or just a money saving measure, it goes against this government's claim of being more environmentally progressive than the last. Now Rudd is cutting the environmental assistance that Howard was willing to allow. 

So we have both a government AND opposition made up of idiots, both coming up with bad environmental policy. What hope can we really lay in government to solve this problem?

A general update today.

First of all, I really love the protests going on with the Olympic torch relay. Does it even still count now that they've put the flame out twice? They're even considering stopping it. The IOC, in giving Beijing the 2008 olympics, stated that they hoped it would help open up Chinese society and maybe be a positive influence on Chinese politics, so they cant exactly complain that protesters are politicising the games. Also, China is pretty clearly using the opportunity to show off China to the world as a world power and a successful developing state, so they cant complain when people point out it isn't that nice to live there (assuming you aren't rich anyway). Kevin Rudd has also exposed himself again as a dickhead on the issue, directing away criticism by claiming China is a lot better now than 25 years ago. So what? That doesn't mean its a good place to be. I don't think that sportspeople should boycott the games, but political leaders certainly should, so hopefully Rudd will get in on the act already, rather than avoiding the issue by leaving it up to his suposed 'schedule'. 

Secondly, this report has just been released by USIP, and details the situation and options for the US in Iraq, and manages to put a positive spin on the fact that security levels are back to 2005 standards. It doesn't paint a very attractive picture.

Thirdly, the SIPR arms transfer database has been updated with 2007 information. Apparently arms sales were down on last year, but overall continuing their upward trend since 2000. it shows Australia as one of the 20 biggest arms importers, and Sudan has imported 87% of its conventional weapons from Russia between 2003-07, so we cant accuse China of being that bad. Its a really useful resource, check it out here.

And lastly, to the Age. I admit I can give some leeway, what with it being the opinon pages and all, but to print such zionist propaganda does require a certain suspension of rationality. Danny Lamm's article on the 7th was a blatant piece of Zionist propaganda. And Danny isn't entirely to blame, we can blame editors for the title 'Israel is taking all the right steps along the pathway to peace', and starting from that, it only got worse. He gets off to a good start, ignoring the problems that are inherent in a two state solution, and moves on to the big guns...

"This solution, however, has its opponents, particularly those groups led by Iran and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and terrorist movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah which reject the peace process and maintain a fanatical commitment to destroy the state of Israel.

This would deny the Jewish people's right to self-determination..."

Invoking 'self-determination' in the defence of the Israeli state? I dont even know how such hypocrisy can function. Has Lamm completely ignored the fact that Israel is a colonial state? Is he completely blind to the Palestinian population being militarily and economically oppressed? Yes, Israelis should have a right to self determination, but has he considered the reasons why so many people want the Israeli state gone?

Lamm then moves on to defend some of the useful state myths surrounding Israel's beginnings, such as Israel's 'David and Goliath' view of the first Arab-Israeli war.He then attempts to discredit the work of Walt and Mearscheimer thesis, which, if you look at it objectively, would seem to confirm their arguments about the Israel lobby. Lamm is clearly eager to fit into this lobby, and his willful ignorance of the perspective of the oppressed in this situation can only discredit his arguments. 

Why is The Age even publishing this crap?
 

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?

What is going on with Team Rudd's death penalty policy? 

Reading The Age this morning I was delighted to read  Labor's Foreign Affairs spokesman Robert McLelland announcing a Labor government would from a regional coalition to abolish the death penalty in South East Asia. Finally, Rudd is showing he's more than just Howard with a smile. The proposed coalition may not really get too far considering that South East Asia is the region with the most government executions, but at least Labor was taking a principled stance. 

However Rudd has quickly distanced himself from any sort of real divergence with Howard. Saying on radio that Labor would never move to have the death penalty overturned in the case of a terrorist.  "We will not be making interventions diplomatically in support of any terrorists anywhere, anytime." 

You can’t really consider it a principle if you’re happy to let it slide every so often. The hypocrisy of the Howard government was made clear last year with the support of the death penalty when it comes to hanging Saddam Hussein, but not when it involves Australian drug traffickers.

Is the death penalty legitimate? Or is it a barbaric and inhumane like Labor argued it was last year.

"The death by hanging, beheading, electrocution, firing squad, or stoning is inhumane, no matter what the crime. Australia needs to use its position internationally and in the region to abolish the death penalty universally." Nicola Roxon argued last year.

I don’t see how Rudd or Howard could argue otherwise.