UN enters into the fight for Libya

Muammar Gaddafi air forces strike anti government rebels
Image source: AFP and The Australian 

Within hours of the passing of a UN resolution authorising military action against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, western nations are preparing air strikes against the despotic Libyan dictator. The UN has authorised military action to prevent Gaddafi's forces from completely crushing civilian led rebel opposition, which only weeks ago, looked ready to topple the Gaddafi government. So far, Britain, France, the United States, Norway and Qatar are countries that have pledged support to enforce the no-fly zone. The French government has indicated that it will start to militarily intervene within 'hours', and Britain's prime minister, David Cameron, has announced that Tornado and Typhoon jets have been placed ready to take action against Libya. The Arab League of Nations has been calling for weeks for the no-fly zone. But it appears that for once, the UN has answered, and done so quickly. Libya's response has been confusing: Muammar Gaddafi's claimed he'll take Benghazi within hours, his Son has claimed the family will hold Tripoli, and Libya's Foreign, Minister Mussa Kussa has declared a ceasefire. Basically, Libya is in turmoil, and the situation changes by the hour.

Despite the ever changing position of the Libyan government, it has been outstanding how fast the UN has reacted to the situation. While it may have taken weeks for the resolution to come about, when it comes to international co-operation and military intervention, it usually takes several months. But the UN functioned effectively this time, because there was a universal consensus that a no-fly zone was needed. Debate was had, thought it didn't bogged down. No country within the security council voted against the proposal, five only abstained. For P5 countries like Russia and China, the use of their veto power would have decimated the resolution, and most likely dragged out debate on the issue for months. While countries like Germany and Poland have indicated that they won't assist in the efforts to enforce the no-fly zone, their acceptance of the international communities wishes to intervene in this matter has been critical assisting the passing of this resolution.

The UN security council resolution has authorised "all necessary measures" to ensure the safety of the Libyan people. Surprisingly, this resolution is more than just a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone gives the ability for the 'international community" to ensure no aircraft (Libyan or otherwise) to fly above Libyan territory. However the UN has authorised "all necessary measures"except the use of ground forces. This means that missile strikes and aerial attacks on Gaddafi's forces is legal.

However by the UN taking such an aggressive approach towards the Libyan situation, it may in fact, only assist Muammar Gaddafi in rallying civilians to fight against both the 'West', and the rebells. As with most North African and Middle Eastern nations, there is much anti-west sentiment. Governments, like Gaddafi claim that 'the west' is an invading force, corrupting the youth of Libya, destroying their culture, taking over their economy; basically causing anything that is bad within society. To outsiders, it sounds pretty bonkers. And that's because it is. But western nations haven't been perfect in their dealings with Arab and North African nations themselves. The US, despite putting a trade embargo upon weapons trading with Libya, it has happily allowed such trading via proxy through Egypt. The risk of the UN taking such a hardline stance against the Libyan dictator is that it gives something for Muammar Gaddafi to point to as 'evidence' that he was right all along. There is also the danger of causing further oppression to the Libyan people. Airstrikes, no matter how targeted, don't always kill exactly who they're intended to kill. As the civilian death toll rises, more and more Libyans who sat in the middle of the war and was neutral to both sides, will start to side with Gaddafi. Civilians will chose whichever side kills the less, and if that's Gaddafi and his forces, then the UN's efforts will backfire by strengthening the dictators regime.

Though there are also practical difficulties in establishing a no-fly zone in Libya. There is firstly, the complication of the 'cease fire' that  Libya's Foreign Minister, Mussa Kussa has announced. It will have to be seen whether all of Muammar Gaddafi's forces will adhere to this change in policy, or even whether Gaddafi and his family will adhere to it themselves. But secondly, there is the issue in being able to enforce a no-fly zone. Libya's military is highly outdated. They have fighter and bomber jets, but they're old cold war jets that have been made by the US. If they are even sent up into the air, they will be easily shot down. The only circumstance in which they could be used, would be to fight against those enforcing the no-fly zone. And if the Libyan army is successful, it will cause a lot of pain and loss of face for the UN. But Gaddafi has irregularly used these jets thus far, because the Libyan army uses helicopters instead. Fighting rebel groups are easier with helicopters. They're easier to manoeuvre and redirect in small scale warfare, such as taking over certain towns. But US jets aren't good at shooting down helicopters. Fighter jets fly too high and too fast to be able to combat low flying helicopters. So the US and major countries such as France, who will be enforcing this ban, don't have the technological capacity to fight on the Libyan army's level. Solutions will be found to this problem, but it means that combat between the no-fly zone enforces and the Libyan army will most likely be closer, meaning casualties are more likely to be higher than expected on the NATO side.

The UN has responded well to the international communities calls to implement a no-fly zone upon Libya. Muammar Gaddafi must not be able to stop a revolution from occurring by killing his own people. As the head of the Libyan state, he has a duty to protect his people. When he can no longer do so, other states are justified in acting to ensure civilians are kept safe. The UN, significantly encroaching upon Libyan's sovereignty, is rightly doing so when the consequences of not acting is that either a dictator succeeds, or anarchy rules. The situation in Libya is most likely going to get worse before it gets better. But hopefully, this no-fly zone will speed up the revolution that's been waiting to occur, and do so whilst shedding the least amount of blood.

Links: 
Libya announces immediate ceasefire, calls halt to military operations - The Australian
UN clears way for no-fly zone - ABC PM program

The colonel charges ahead - The Economist 

France says military action against Libya will come 'within hours' - The Telegraph

Military strikes on Libya within hours: France - ABC news

WikiLeaks is not helping this war

WikilLeaks founder Julian Assange - Image source Washington Post

WikiLeaks recent decision to release more than 250 000 confidential diplomatic cables has yet again created international political and media hysteria. Media organisations around the world have publicly (and secretly) applauded them for releasing information that has fed news-cycles for weeks. Politicians, especially those from the US, have called for his arrest on grounds of breaching national security. While in the past WikiLeaks has released videos and documents that could arguably pose a risk to US national security, it chose to do so because it believed the information contained within those videos and documents would protect the international community. However in this recent release of diplomatic cables, the information that is contained within them is comparably trivial to the other documents that exposed US atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as systematic failures in the US military. The leaking of a video depicting US soldiers opening fire on civilians was meant to help save lives by bringing greater public attention to the war. But what this leak has done instead is damage the integrity of diplomatic relations amongst all countries, and may in fact heat up an old 'cold' war. The exposure of diplomatic tensions between China and North Korea will only aggravate the increasingly aggressive state who doesn't like to be publicly denounced, especially by its closest ally, China.

The documents leaked outline China's growing unrest with North Korea, especially with its nuclear program. Colourful language - as colourful as diplomacy gets - such as China referring to the North as a "spoilt child" attracts headlines and attention. Though the issue here isn't what China actually thinks of North Korea, but how the DPRK (North Korean government) perceive the ensuing media attention. China has always been the negotiator between the US, Japan, South Korea and the unpredictable North Korea. It has been China who has repeatedly encouraged North Korea back to the six party talks after it has walked out because no one accepted the North's right to pursue nuclear weaponry. It is well documented that China supports North Korea because it stops 23 millions refugees from flooding over its boarder, and also keeps China, geographically speaking, an arms distance away from South Korea. Though China's unwavering support for the North was most recently seen when, in defiance of a reputable international finding, it supported North Korea's denial of the sinking a South Korean ship. Yet China doesn't like North Korea playing around with nuclear material in what it perceives as its backyard. In 2006 when the DPRK was flouting international law and openly testing its nuclear capabilities, China temporarily shut down power to Pyongyang (which it supplies) - a strong message for North Korea to keep it quiet. Then it also supported a UN resolution to impose further sanctions on the recluse state, despite its continual trade links and dodgy deals with the DPRK. China keeps its position ambiguous so as to avoid serious scrutiny, but also so it can reap the benefits of a US alliance and still have occasional shady dealings with North Korea. Though these diplomatic cables highlighting government tensions between China and the North will make both the US and North Korea question China's standpoint. To best serve its national interest, but also based on precedence, China will remain silent. Though the political skirmish that could ensue in both North and South Korea, may disastrously result in the end of a very tenuous Korean peace.

North Korea is very touchy to international condemnation. When the UN passes a resolution prohibiting it from pursuing nuclear weapons, the DPRK orders for missiles to be fired into the sea of Japan. When  South Korea and the US plan on having "war games" just outside North Korean territory to demonstrate the military prowess of the US and South Korea, the North shells a nearby South Korean island. Basically, North Korea and the DPRK don't like to have their power or image threatened. So the consequence of its closest ally, China, tittle-tattling to the US about how mischievous it is, will not go unnoticed. China and the North may be really chummy at the moment and this is China's way of feeding the US what it would like to hear, though it could also be an under representation of a very fragile relationship between China and the DRPK. Regardless, it is the airing of either fabricated or factual dirty laundry that will insight North Korea to demonstrate its military capabilities yet again. Because of the WikiLeak, North Korea's sovereignty is diminished because the main other state upholding it, is showing wavering support. Thus it will most likely demonstrate to the world that it a nation not to be reckoned with through the only way it knows how - military power and missile 'tests'. And it could well be China who will be in the firing range of North Korea's latest military display, for its unintentional public display of insubordination. WikiLeaks intentions of peace, honesty and accountably, may only provide further fuel for another Korean war.

What WikiLeaks has done is change the course of diplomacy for the forceable future, and ultimately damaged the ability for countries to form diplomatic and strategic alliances. Diplomacy is something that doesn't always need to be made public, mainly on the basis that it is ever changing. Shooting civilians in wartime or making obvious strategic mistakes when at war are actions that should be held to the highest account. The mentioning in a cable that North Korea is "a threat to the whole world's security" is hyperbolic diplomatic nonsense. The Economist very neatly summarised the necessity for diplomacy to be kept confidential.

At this point, what WikiLeaks is doing seems like tattling: telling Sally what Billy said to Jane. It's sometimes possible that Sally really ought to know what Billy said to Jane, if Billy were engaged in some morally culpable deception. But in general, we frown on gossips.

If the documents outlined the US secretly supporting North Korea, that would warrant public attention. Though having every menial detail of almost every US diplomatic cable since the 1960s released, only brings attention to the juicy, somewhat bizarre conversations that have occurred. China's sideways comment to the US about it not being so friendly with North Korea, suddenly becomes China's foreign policy in the eyes of countries like South Korea. This is because South Korea is under enormous domestic pressure to resolve the ongoing conflict, most preferably by uniting the North under South control. This gives politicians in South Korea who want to take a harder, more militarised stance against North Korea, greater political capital to do so. They have a few phrases from a couple of 'WikiLeaked' documents to prove it. This is where WikiLeaks intentions of creating accountability and transparency falter. The documents reception in mainstream media and politics is patchy and only focuses of the visceral, entertaining parts. Like the fact that mainstream media hasn't questioned why more US cables have been in direct reference to the state of Tasmania rather than the whole country of Australia? It's these entertaining and 'newsworthy' lines that'll attract media attention and change public attitudes, not the other plethora of documents that are the diplomatic equivalent of foreign ministers sending smily faced text messages to each other.

The intentions of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was inherently good. Transparency, honesty and accountability are values worth pursuing. Unfortunately for Assange that comes at the cost of being pursued by the US government for "endangering national security" and most likely, being charged for espionage. But the release of diplomatic cables is very different to war logs or footage of soldiers firing upon civilians. The benefit that occurs to the global population on behalf of this release is minimal. It doesn't foster transparency, it only shuts down diplomatic channels and harbours distrust amongst governments. It doesn't encourage honesty, governments will only deny the authenticity of the cables (like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done). Neither does it promote accountability, as the information it contains doesn't expose any one person or any government of serious wrongdoing. The only thing this leak has done is aired the private conversation of countries and diplomats, which in turn feeds the news-cycle and most likely, aggravates overly pretentious countries like North Korea. This leak only insights unstable countries like North Korea to demonstrate their military capabilities through missile strikes and war.

Links: 
WikiLeaks degenerates into gossip - The Economist

At-loss China accepts unified Korea: WikiLeaks - AFP

China ready to abandon North Korea: WikiLeaks - ABC Online

WikiLeaks cables reveal the problem of Pyongyang - Guardian 

Analysis: WikiLeaks reveals China, N. Korea tensions - CNN International

Wikileaks cables reveal China 'ready to abandon North Korea' - Guardian 

Silent progress on the international stage

Gillard and Obama talk for the media - Image Source AFP

Julia Gillard has been jet-setting around the globe, representing Australia on the international stage. She hasn't yet been nicknamed after an aircraft like Kevin 747 yet, though the Liberal Party machine or Joe Hockey may churn something out in the near future. Interestingly enough, Kevin Rudd, when not in bad health, has been doing the same. His role as Minister for Foreign Affairs has seen him give a berating lecture to the UN, criticising it for all talk and no action. It is about time someone else other than Colonel Gaddafi gave the UN a good dressing down. Yet the real progress that has been made hasn't been Gillard getting used to foreign affairs, but what she and the international community have done in regards to trade liberalisation. Not to mention strengthening Australia's bilateral and multilateral relations. 

Foreign Affairs in Australian politics occasionally gets as juicy and zealous as "boat-people", Afghanistan and or something to do with New Zealand. When it comes to election issues, it's all about domestic politics with the exception of the aforementioned. Yet as all major parties declare that they are for 'responsible economic management' and 'furthering Australia's national interest abroad', Australia's involvement with free trade agreements are swiftly glossed over. Instead, images of the protesters and rallies being held outside of the G20 meeting, and the dress on Gillard's APEC doll are much more exciting. Then again, reams of documents outlining every miniscule detail about every product coming under a FTA (Free Trade Agreement) doesn't make for an interesting headline. But the agreements and relations that Australia has been fostering within these last two meetings, have set the framework for a more positive economic future for Australia as well as the Asia Pacific region.  

Gillard's conscientious effort to become more diplomatically engaged with other heads of state sets a positive outlook for future relations. It may seem corny that Gillard calls Obama her "mate", but such superficial and symbolic relations can be significantly built upon in times of need. Howard's chummy friendship with George W. Bush was a significant factor that lead to Howard evoking the ANZUS treaty soon after September 11, and unconditionally supporting the US in both its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. All the diplomatic hand shaking, smiling, and pandering to the media about being buddies and good friends is bluff. But it is bluff that can be turned into powerful political capital when necessary. 

Despite the leaders circus, minus the funny attire this time, the most important and significant outcome of both the G20 and APEC summit has been the continuing push towards the finalisation of a multilateral free trade agreement. Surprisingly enough tariffs and barriers to trade still extensively exists amongst most countries. China's (below market value) fixed currency acts as a practical barrier to imports while strengthening their exports. Similarly, the US Federal Reserve's decision to artificially lower its dollar via a $600 billion stimulus package acts as a barrier to trade. Such barriers are hard to regulate in an international environment, especially when it is the 'big two' (China and the US) who are playing dirty. But barriers like Japan's 778% tariff on imported rice can be dismantled and regulated easier. For many reasons (though mainly shorted sighted political self interest), developed countries block or try to slow down multilateral trade liberalisation agreements, like the Doha round, which benefit emerging economies more than it does them. Though with developed countries seeking post GFC recovery, trade liberalisation that encourages economic development, is what they appear to be turning to. Despite Japan having numerous conservative governments that have failed to create significant growth, Japan's is showing signs of accepting, or even supporting, more free trade within the Asia Pacific area. If economic growth is going to occur, Japan wants to be part of it. 

The US backed free trade block, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is gaining momentum and support from many countries within the Asia Pacific region, including Australia. Having such an agreement would not only benifit Australia, but the entire region. It would open up Australia to the fastest growing export market, as well as foster stability within an otherwise relatively unstable region. Both Obama and Gillard acknowledged that regional stability comes with economic growth; which is the ideological objective of multilateral free trade agreements. Along with this, many APEC countries have agreed that the Doha round has been the elephant in the room for too long, and that agreement and action needs to be reached. Unsurprisingly enough, Gillard pledged Australia's support. 

Suddenly and silently, action appears to be occurring. The more media gusto and grandeur that is placed around these events, the greater the flop they usually are - Copenhagen anyone? So this relatively unnoticed summit that has fostered consensus, may yield some results. Though despite the international political acknowledgement that there are mutual benefits from an Asia Pacific free trade area, it could still silently slide of the table and into the abyss. Though all is not lost. Howard and his buddy Bush used their relationship to finalise the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. If so, let us hope that Gillard can use some of the political capital she has built up to further bilateral free-trade agreements with China and our smaller regional neighbours. Plus, she has always got Kevin Rudd on hand. 

Links:

Gillard on the go is being undersold - National Times

APEC leaders agree on free trade zone - ABC online

Resist protectionism, Julia Gillard urges leaders at G20 summit in Seoul - The Australian 

Japan is test case for Pac Rim free trade zone - Associated Press 

Unite for free trade, Gillard tells G20 leaders - National Times

A very slow succession

It's been a long time coming, but it finally may be here. Kim Jong il appears to be stepping down and installing his youngest son, Kim Jong Un. For many years, King Jong Il's poor health and reckless nuclear ambitions have indicated such a transition was imminent; but nothing ever materialised. Though a couple of months ago, Chinese media sources reported the creation of a statue of Kim Jong Il. There are many statues of Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il's father and technically, still the ruler of North Korea. Though they were only erected after his death. This is because North Korean juche culture stipulates that statues of leaders can only be built and displayed after they've died. So either Kim Jong Il is shaking things up in the north, or he's finalising his affairs before steps down (or dies).

I've reported before on the future leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, but this time, his succession finally appears to be occurring. The health of Kim Jong Il has been like a roller coaster ride. One day he's reported to be seriously ill after a stroke, the next he is about to die of pancreatic cancer, and then a few months after never being seen, he meets up with Bill Clinton to negotiate the release of US journalists. Being the mysterious leader of one of the most secretive states in the world appears to be one of his greatest accomplishments. He's accredited with transforming the North into rogue nuclear state, however North Korea has no ability to project that power any further than South Korea. It's numerous nuclear tests and sinking of the Cheonan have angered it's closest and most powerful ally, China. Following North Korea's latest nuclear tests, which were in clear defiance of international law and UN condemnation, China cut the transmission line between it and Pyongyang. This resulted in around 80% of North Korea being plunged into darkness. China, usually the moderator between the western world and the North, actually took an active step to prevent North Korea from exercising its nuclear power, even at the possibility of creating social and political instability. China and the North have always had a love/hate relationship, but with a new leader soon to take charge, that relationship will be critical in ensuring a peaceful transition.

Aid being given to North Korea has been in a steady decline since 2005. Defying international law and acting like a recalcitrant cretin with nuclear ambitions does that. But with more famine and death being caused by natural disasters and consistent North Korean government neglect and mismanagement, more aid is being offered. Previous aid agreements, most notably between US president Bill Clinton and North Korea, saw the closure and abandonment of the North's nuclear reactors...for a while. It appears that any attempts by any international institution or government to quell the North's nuclear aims, has proven fruitless. Carrots don't tempt the North to do good, and the using the stick would result in war. Though there is one exception to this rule: China. It's China who not only keeps the North's few lights running, but it's entire economy as well. It's North Korea's largest trading partner, political ally and sympathiser. It's China who is either going to make or break this succession.

The main thing China wants is regional stability, hence it's warning to the North about playing too much with the nukes. So it's obviously going to accept Kim Jong Un's rule, just to prevent a regime collapse and 24 million refugees flooding across the boarder. But North Korea is still stubborn. It doesn't want China to micro manage all of its affairs, run its economy and plumb the land for all the resources it has got. Similarly, China sees the North as an inefficient, unstable state with an economy going nowhere. Under a new leader, I'll be China who gets the undivided attention of Chang Sung Taek (Kim Jong Un's uncle) and Kim Jong Un himself. This leadership change is the perfect time for China to capatilise on new trade relations; ones that encourage industry, more open markets, more free flowing of information. It's these small steps, that may help stabilise the North by making it less reliant on nuclear power to prop up its regime.

This hypothesis really does fall short thought when you look at it in the context of Iran. But then again, there's no super power "mother country" sitting next door to Iran, telling it what to do. North Korea is at its most politically unstable point in decades. Kim Jong Un isn't being paraded around as a national hero just yet. The pomp and grandeur being delayed is just a sign of ineffective and unstable government, let alone bad event management. So for all it may be worth, this very slow succession in North Korea could turn out to be an opportunity for China to make inroads into this recluse state, to the benefit of all.

Links:
Third Kim lucky? - The Economist
The unconference - The Economist

US watches 'leadership process' in North Korea - AFP

South Korea Offers Aid to North - Wall Street Journal

North Korea, in Secret, Moves Toward Anointing a New Kim - Time 

Google and China make waves

After a long holiday break, a political opinion is back! Though while some of us have been happily holidaying and enjoying the summer, internationally, waves are being created by China and Google, whose already rocky relationship is quickly diminishing. Cyberwarfare and hacking is warfare of the 21st century. It's not traditional warfare in the sense that a country declares war on another, as groups and states can secretly hack, corrupt and steal data from another countries government or businesses. This is further highlighted with Barack Obama citing that cyberwarfare is a grave threat to the US and that freedom of information is critical, especially on the internet. But before we delve into the current crisis of Google and China, and the implications it has for Google, China and the US, we must look at how it all started.

In 1989, the Tiananmen Square massacre occurred, which has been the last major pro democracy protest in China. This caused a huge international controversy with many countries, including Australia, almost cutting off all diplomatic channels with China. While the massacre was isolated and the rest of China kept in the dark about the situation, the western world flourished with smuggled out images depicting the atrocities. The most common is the "tank man" (a student blocking a tank from passing within the square, before being hauled away). The Chinese government staunchly wants to stay in power and believes its communist rule is the most effective in governing China. Thus it has taken great steps in order to quash pro democracy movements and information about what occurred. With the development of the internet and free flowing information, China has been willing to accept the internet to develop, however it very closely monitors, filters, blocks and traces it. Hence what it doesn't want the people of China to know, it blocks. Biadu, China's main search engine, complies with all of the Chinese Governments requests and orders. Being one of the fastest growing countries, largest in population and hence going to have the greatest internet usage out of any nation, Google has tried to tap into China's technological growth, and become a rival search engine.  It entered the Chinese market with google.cn in 2006.

The relationship between Google and China has been fraught with difficulties. Firstly, China wants to restrict Google's search results and have Google "self censor" (block sites on their own will, but  with direction from the government) its results. Freedom of information advocates around the world (though mainly in the US) have tried to stop Google from doing this, even to the point of suing them. The US administration's China policy and Google's has been very close over the last few years. While not comfortable with censorship, Google has not been profiteering from its Chinese venture, nor making great inroads into the Chinese search engine market. However these last few days have really put to pressure on their already weak relationship.

Google HQ in California recently found that Google, and several other US based companies from Yahoo to Symantic, had been hacked from a Chinese source. After some investigation, they found that the Chinese government had either authorized or conducted these hacks on Chinese Gmail account users, who were also pro democracy supporters. Basically the Chinese government wanted personal information about Chinese Gmail users (to which it could have asked Google to relinquish, though it most likely wouldn't have to unless under US law), but instead they hacked a small amount out. Unfortunately for the Chinese government, it just bit the digital hand that is feeding its populous. In an official blog post from Google, aptly titled "A New Approach to China", Google stated that it would review its business operations in China because of the hack, and that it would stop filtering its searches for Chinese users. Google stopping it's "self censoring" is the interesting part.

When Google used to self censor in China, any result that the Chinese government didn't like, from images of the Tiananmen square massacre, to Barack Obama's comments about democracy and freedom of information whist visiting China, to the blog post Google used to announce its Google.cn plans, were blocked. Now if you type Tiananmen square into Google.cn, instead of happy pictures of Tiananmen square in sunshine, you get pictures of the "tank man", wikipedia entries and information about the massacre. Almost a generation have not known about this incident, even people who lived throughout that time. Now, with a Google search, everything their government doesn't want them to see, they can view.

The implications this has for Google, the US and China are immense. China has to either accept Google's decision not to filter or bring it down, unless Google decides to start filtering again. The US government now has an avenue to which it can explore it's own role regarding dialog on human rights abuses and freedom of information within China, as well as the tricky situation of cyberwarfare. While there is not enough information to actually prosecute the Chinese government over the hacking, Google's decision to stop filtering its searches is worse than any international condemnation or process though the International Court of Justice. The social ramifications, and possible civil unrest, that can occur from Google's decision is yet to be seen. Hence, despite Google's intentions to 'get even' with the Chinese government, the possible waves itself can create through freedom of information is astounding.

Links


Censorship and hacker attacks provide the epitaph for Google in China - The Economist

A New Approach to China - Google's Official Blog

Chinese government-backed search engine blocks access to Google company blog

After Google’s Loud Stance on China, U.S. Treads Lightly - The New York Times

Tensions between Google and China complicate U.S. diplomacy - The Washington Post

Abbott in - more than just the ETS put out!

It's not often I find myself detesting a particular politician. The one Australian politician that really grinds my gears would have to be Tony Abbott. So while my jaw hit the ground when the news broke that he became "leader" (and I do use the term very loosely) of the opposition, it's now firmly back up in its place, grinding away at my teeth.


With Tony Abbott winning the position as Liberal Party leader, the conservative faction of the Liberal Party has taken over again. But at least they have stopped pining the Howard years (I hope). This is in line with his view not to implement the Emissions Trading Scheme within Australia, claiming that it was a pointless tax that was only going to ruin the economy and not cut carbon emissions. However he also takes the position "we won't be having a tax as part of our policy going to the next election". Instead, Abbott has taken the stance of supporting nuclear power for Australia, and is wishing to start up the nuclear debate. 


Firstly, (and also strangely), I support his view that we should reverse the current policy of not selling uranium to India. As one of the fastest growing economies in the world and an equally growing contributor to climate change, having access now to a low carbon energy source is a necessity for environmentally friendly growth. Because without it, growth will still continue but with more emissions!
Secondly, as discussed in Nuclear the way, but not for Australia on this blog, with Australia having such a relatively small impact on climate change, more long term solutions, such as investment in renewables that thus far can not deliver base load power, is a responsible (and less costly) option. 
But thirdly, Tony Abbott, playing politics as he does, is just muddying the waters around the debate of Australia's responsibility for action and the implementation of the ETS. This magical alternative, is also not to be "rushed into". Methodical debate and planning is necessary for a plan to reduce Australia's carbon emissions, though that's occurred with the ETS. I'd point out an example that didn't have scrutiny or debate, like 'Work Choices', but as John Cleese eloquently put it, "Don't mention the war!"


And even despite the current stance for inaction and a challenge to a verbal joust on nuclear power, a clause for further inaction has been revealed by Abbott - "The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America." While it may sound like a good stance on environmental policy, the 'Pope of the Parliament' knows that the blocking of the ETS only further cements in the likelihood of an unsuccessful international agreement at Copenhagen. Here's how.

China is the worlds largest emitter, followed by the US. If both come to an agreement to cut emissions, other countries will most likely follow suit (or be made to). However the US and China haven't come to an agreement (despite small cuts and agreements, signalling some hope) , and instead insist on the other a) taking the blame and b) making cuts. When they get tired of this, they look to the rest of the world, claiming no one else is doing something. Those who take the first steps to cutting emissions are leading, are making a difference and most importantly, setting a precedence and signal for the rest of the world to act. This is why the EU trading scheme has been successful. It has had the most impact in forcing China and the US to engage and act! By Australia acting and making cuts, it encourages other countries to do the same, to stick to rules of the "international community". Actions will speak louder than words


But with the recent rhetoric from Tony Abbott and the more outspoken right wing of the Liberal Party, the hot air will continue to flow. So while Abbot may believe "to become leader, you make a new start" and have a "clean break", yesterdays Abbot wasn't good, today he's OK, and tomorrow he'll be gone, and that day, will be "good". (apologies for the very bad religious reference)


Note:
The Copenhagen conference will run from the 7th to the 18th December
The Government plans to reintroduce the ETS on February 2nd, the first sitting of Parliament.

Links
Tony Abbott backs nuclear talks after senate block Labor's ETS scheme - The Australian
Liberals get "one last chance" on climate laws - ABC online
Dead ETS to rise again - SMH online

Change in an unchanging state

The one thing that most analysts can predict about North Korea, is that it is unpredictable. And often they are right.

Change is about to come to North Korea, whether we or they like it or not. Kim Jong-il is slowly dying due to obesity and alcoholism. Ironic isn't it...the might of the US, the UN or even the western world couldn't push Kim off his perch of power, but now he is going to silently slide off with a bottle of cognac in his hand.

The son he has chosen to succeed him (reportedly) is the son most like him. They supposedly share the same interests and look alike. Even though he is the youngest son (out of 3), he was the only son not to have been disgraced by embracing western culture and delights. So Kim Jong-un (pictured as a boy) is going to be daddy Kim's protege. So while it may just appear that North Korea is going to have a new leader with an 'un' rather than 'il', it couldn't be further from the truth.

Firstly, like any leader who comes into power, they have to prove they are fit for the job. There is no exception to the dictatorial rule of North Korea. So while 'daddy' may have laid out future plans for Kim Jong-un, 'un' will need to make plans of his own. The communist party of North Korea will be greatly shaken up when their 'dear leader' dies. They will want action to be taken, they will want change. Kim Jong-il was and is seen as a competent leader by most within the party, but those factions that saw him otherwise will let their voices be heard before he is put in the ground. Kim Jong-un will have to prove to the party that he is up to being the leader of North Korea. So there will be guaranteed issues arise within the government itself.

Secondly, the international pressure put on Kim Jong-un will be enormous. The world will see this as a new opportunity to open talks with the secluded North. He will have to react to that, because the UN and US will exploit his official appointment if they are to take any further action against the North. Kim Jong-un may side with the moderates within the government, and choose to improve relations. But he could just as easily do the opposite, and officially declare and start a small nuclear war. He will have to make decisions and take action, because the world will be moving, even if he chooses to stay politically still.

And lastly, even if there is no internal political shake up, or if the world just sits back and watches, there will be guaranteed change. North Korea will have their own "Obama moment", whether they like it or not. And the reason this will occur is because it is what the 'dear leader' taught Kim Jong-un. Vanity. This little protege won't be able to resist making his own changes. It could be turning the state into a capitalist market economy, or just redecorating the wallpaper. He was bred to be vain, to think of himself, and so he will act using his personal judgements, not his fathers. Whatever way he chooses to differ from his fathers rule, we can hope that he chooses the right path, and not redecorate.

Ultimately, the North is going to have a shake up when Kim Jong-il's takes his last bow and falls off his perch. (unlike his father, Kim Il-sung, who was like a "Norwegian blue" parrot, Kim Jong-il is not nailed to his perch) Everyone will push their own agenda, to try and influence the successor's decisions. So while we manage to predict the possible outcomes, we manage to come to the conclusion that the actions of the the North, are unpredictable.

LINKS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8078324.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8078562.stm

North Korea - a very naughty boy

If you haven't watched Monty Pythons The life of Brian, you must. Beg, borrow, steal, do almost anything to get your hands on a copy, it's worth it.

If you've seen the movie, you will most likely remember this memorable quote "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy." This very same quote can be easily applied to the actions of North Korea.

Kim Jong-il (and the eternal deceased leader, Kim Il-sung) have managed to convince enough (if not most) of the population of North Korea that they are doing a good job. While the whole culture of North Korea evolves around the notion that they are a) the centre of the universe b) have more power than the west and c) are on the 'right' side of the war, the rest of the world looks on and sees the truth. So apart from broadcasting The life of Brain onto every TV set in North Korea, the west is unable to show the people of North Korea what their leader really is.

One of the reasons Kim Jong-il remains in power, is by displaying to the people of North Korea the power of the government and their country. So by firing off missiles and making the earth tremor because of a nuclear bomb test, it is quite effective at demonstrating the power of the government and socialism. This demonstration of power also attracts the worlds attention. While the North may be perceived as acting like a little child throwing a tantrum to get the worlds attention, this demonstration of power may have different meanings.

Who are they demonstrating their power to, and how are they demonstrating it? They have shown to the world they have nuclear material and are technologically capable of turning it into a rudimentary bomb - so their actions could be an advertisement.

By demonstrating that they are a powerful nation, are they requesting more respect from the world? They may want special bilateral sit down talks with the US (as they have wanted in the past), so they can put their demands past the UN and straight to arguably the most powerful state?

Or alternatively, is Kim Jon-Il just a crackpot leader with death wish for his country?

While we can sit and hypothesize and analyse the actions of North Korea, what we can't do, and haven't been able to do, is control those actions. We may not know exactly why they are doing what they are doing, but we can predict that the North is greatly unpredictable and uncontrollable. The key to fixing this rogue state may not be what the rest of the world can do, but what the people of North Korea can do!