A defence to the 2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms.

For Freedom! -  Source: Flickr

a political opinion has always had a strong view against the 2nd Constitutional Amendment Right in the United States. Yet here we will try and analyse a reasonable justification (yes that's correct!) for keeping the second amendment. This is because there is some reason for the right to bear arms, on the basis of self defence.

The argument that will be analysed is:

"The right to bear arms ensures the natural rights of self-defence, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defiance of the state" 

So, here it goes. 

Premise: We have a right to defend ourselves from others and the state. 

To defend yourself from others seems like a reasonable justification. If others attack, you have a right to self defence. While the law of self defence has changed substantially through the ages, most modern notions of self defence are based on the actions of defence being proportional to the threat. That means if someone threatens to fling a banana skin at you, you can't pull out a rocket launcher and blow them to smithereens. Laws already limit the use of the 2nd Amendment right to make sure it is used only in proportional circumstances, otherwise a punishment will be given. But the government doesn't allow for the ownership of nuclear or chemical weaponry. This is because these kind of weapons would never be able to be successfully proportionally used against the threat of others.

So far then we can say that personal weaponry (like small arms) is useful in defending yourself against others. 

What about defending yourself against your government? Well, as much as gun enthusiasts love to tote about how they can keep the government to account through the barrel of their gun, the governments vastly superior army, military, technology and resources will always, always win. 

A massive problem: There is thus an inequality in what arms can be owned.

Because the government already restricts to a significant degree what kind of weaponry may be owned,  the right for the average American citizen to defend themselves from the wrath of the almighty government is useless, unless the state allows citizens to own weapons of the same grade as the state. 

Conclusion

The state may grant you a 'right' to defend yourself from others and from the state (which it then prevents you from doing so by means of other laws). The right to bear arms in your defence can include hitting your opponent with the arms of a stuffed dead bear, or a weapon that fires metal bullets at hundreds of km an hour.

Your right to bear arms is just an extension of your right to self defence by any proportional means necessary.

*** Note: This blog does not endorse the US 2nd Amendment Right: The Right to Bear Arms. 

Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easier to!

The US has long struggled to pass meaningful law reform on gun control and ownership. If it hasn't been the National Rifle Association (NRA) watering down policy, it has been the Supreme Court overruling it but upholding the second amendment of the constitution. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting has inspired many on Capitol Hill to modify existing laws. While some political pundits and commentators are optimistic that the small progress that can be made now will set a trend for more discussion and policy in the future, there isn't much to be optimistic about. Passing small, watered down and compromised policy in the aftermath of an unparallelled national tragedy, only raises the bar for when policy discussion can occur again. It just affirms that policy will only ever follow after tragedy.

Joe Biden's "there is no silver bullet" approach (ignoring the politically incorrect pun), does have some merit. Yet in attempting to be holistic, it has become sidetracked with issues not directly related to gun violence and gun control. There is degree of dissent amongst experts and social scientists regarding the link between violent videogames and gun violence. Regardless of the link, current laws are too lax at preventing children from being exposed and participating in videogame violence. Though it really is skirting around the main issue of gun control when almost anyone is able to access a gun in the first place, because the NRA and other lobby groups have severely limited the ability of Congress to pass laws to restrict or even control sales.

The NRA is really clutching at straws trying to defend the right of US citizens to bear arms. Sadly though, their pathetic catch phrases and argumentation work.

"...this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans"

Given that the NRA lobbied to put a clause in Obama's healthcare reform policy that prevented the US government from collecting data on gun ownership, can we verify this claim? When 40% of gun sales in the US occur without background checks, how do we know these people pay taxes, are hardworking, or are even honest enough to say who they really are? It's a desperate attempt by the NRA hide reality with meaningless rhetoric.

Even when the NRA doesn't cry out against gun reform, many US citizens do, claiming they have a right to protect themselves and their families. I couldn't agree more with them. But I strongly disagree in their desired method of how they want to defend themselves. Let's say you want a gun to protect yourself from a home intruder. A gun is both a very big threat to that intruder, and it can be used to stop someone from breaking into your house and hurting you. All you need is gun with 4 or less bullets, depending on how bad your aim is and how many people you're expecting to try and break into your house. But an assault weapon with an extended clip of more than 100 bullets isn't needed to ward off your local burglar. That's the kind of weapon used to take on the FBI, SWAT or US Army. So in that circumstance you're not really wanting a gun to protect your family, but you're looking for a mass killing machine that will allow you to overpower anyone or anything that comes in your way. That's not self defence, but mass murder.

The mantra of "self defence"and "protection" by the NRA, gun lobby groups and gun toting citizens really doesn't lend much weight to their claim for gun ownership. It is a mantra to have more police officers, more home security, a right to have personal panic rooms and to sleep with a baseball bat beside your bed. You may have a right to defend yourself from a burglar or random aggressor walking down the street, but you do not have a right to kill them. And what's a gun really for? It's not a tazor gun which incapacitates, or baton which can ward off and injure someone, or pepper spray which causes temporary blindness. It's a contraption that shoots small metal balls at high speeds, designed to kill a target. It's not a defensive weapon. Even if it is, there are better alternatives available, eliminating the right for US citizens to "bear arms", but to now use more sophisticated personal defence devices. And that is a discussion the NRA really doesn't want anyone to have.

Links: 
How the Video-Game Industry Already Lost Out in the Gun-Control Debate - The Atlantic
Joe Biden Gun Control Recommendations: Background Checks To Be Top Priority - Huffington Post
Joe Biden meets games companies as gun control taskforce readies proposals - The Guardian
White House has 'agenda to attack the second amendment', says NRA - The Guardian

US debt ceiling woes

"I told you so" 

The US has always had a morbid fascination with its debt. Clocks had been set up around the country decades ago, showing the slow but steady increase in US public debt. With the 11th hour nigh before the US debt ceiling is reached on August 2nd, there is a strange, discomforting irony in going back and looking at the clocks that were originally passed off as a scaremongering tactic for conservative candidates. Though with Congress still not having come to a decision as to whether to raise the debt ceiling (and if so by how much), there is the ever growing possibility that the US may default.  And even if it doesn't, the US may still dip back into recession because of bad economic policies were rushed through at the last minute to avoid default.

The very idea of a debt ceiling for government makes perfect sense. It's a cap (the ceiling bit) on the amount of money the government can borrow. This in theory reduces the ability of a government to act irresponsibly and charge up the national credit card on irrelevant, pricey policies. Though in this circumstance, the US debt ceiling is acting as anything but a protection measure for the US government and economy. It has become a mere obstruction to the ability for the US government to make both timely policy, but also not to default and loose its AAA credit rating.

To take the view of the "Tea Party", Barack Obama - being as fiscally and politically irresponsible as he is -  is trying to ruin the US economy. In this situation, the debt ceiling wouldn't stop an economic disaster. As soon as the government over borrowed, either the government would have cease from acting on anything that cost or the US would loose its AAA credit rating and economic strife would ensure. The President could also ignore the ceiling and open up the possibility for impeachment, thus economically and politically disabling the economy. In no way does the US debt ceiling manage to avoid or mitigate bad political and economic decisions in relation to debt. It acts more as a guideline, a point of reference to which governments would not like to reach because of what it symbolises; bad economic management.

Though for Barack Obama, who is trying to stimulate the struggling US economy and also push through major yet costly healthcare reform, the debt ceiling acts only as a blockade to action. It prohibits the President from using his executive power to make decisive action where Congress dithers and dawdles.  Though the closer the US gets to hitting the $USD14.3 trillion ceiling, the more pressure is placed on him to take decisive action.

On the current course, if no action is taken, the US will break through the ceiling on August 2nd, requiring Congress to limit government expenditure, resulting in the US defaulting on some of its loans. The impact of this would not only likely plunge the US back into recession, but it would trigger a wave of instability over financial markets around the world. With the already unstable Eurozone, a US default would only worsen their situation. The other option is that the President ignores the ceiling (and continues spending) or priorities some payments so as to avoid default. Though this would cause a political/constitutional crisis with the President using his powers in the manner, creating even more uncertainty and instability. Hence the only real option that remains is negotiation and deal making with the Republicans. As the Republicans hold the majority in the  House of Representatives, and could realistically pass their own policy of heavy spending cuts through with a filibuster, politics in Congresses is getting very terse, tense and nasty.

It's 11th hour of Capital Hill with the 2nd August fast approaching. It is unknown whether it will be the Democrats or Republicans who become victims of circumstance by agreeing to a last minute deal in Congress. The one unknown variable in this political equation is the markets knowledge that the US economy is at its most fragile state since the 2008 GFC (Global Financial Crisis). This may be the hour for bold decision making and strong leadership; or a drawn out filibuster, political backstabbing and a solution that no one is really confident in.

Links

US House and Senate divided over debt ceiling issue - BBC news 

Q&A: Why has the US not agreed a new debt ceiling? - BBC news 

Talks resume as Senate kills off debt bill - ABC news 

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 

Is there such a thing as 'digital privacy'?

The discussion about privacy on the internet is continuing to heat up, with Google now being taken to a US court for 'illegally' obtaining and storing data it received when driving round in the US, mapping for Google's Streetview. Criticisms have now moved on to Facebook, for its continual change of privacy settings. Governments around the world, including the Australian government, are struggling to apply normal legislation about privacy to these companies, and the internet at large. Do people make a conscience choice to give up personal information to companies and third parties? Or are they being misled? Regardless of what they choose to give up, the most concerning issue is what's being taken without your knowledge or consent. Tougher laws are needed, to give clarity to people interacting with the web, but also to companies who are providing ever expanding services. It's about time Australia introduced a comprehensive internet "bill of rights", clarifying laws already murky, and start setting precedence for protecting users privacy.

The main misconception with online privacy is that if you don't disclose any personal information, you're completely safe. Though even though you may not disclose your address, name, or picture of yourself, even more personal information about you can be surreptitiously disclosed. A US phone company was able to pinpoint a random customers exact location with over 90% accuracy, by only using past records of their phone usage. Thus whatever you've done in your past, can now be dug up to effect your present. And with digital media, it is even easier to track, record, analyse and distribute this data. From what you like to buy, to what you search the most on Google, all this is recorded. Even when you do a Google search or use a website, you may not be imparting 'vital' information about yourself, such as your name or location, enough information can be gathered about you without your knowledge. AOL once recorded the search results of individual clients then gave the clients a random ID. Through the compilation of just search data, other companies were able to track down individuals, by only having a list of search terms.

But it's not just AOL who does this. Google records your ISP number (it's like a car registration number for your computer), thus it records all the searches you conduct. One of the great points of Google is that is brings back search results that you want. Though it can only do this through gathering information about our habits. Are we legally able to opt out of this system? Can we have our records expunged if we choose to? Did we ever legally sign a contract with Google allowing it to do this? NO! And that's the problem. We inherently allow them to do this, every time we hit search! Such practices need legal clarification, so we know our digital rights to privacy, and companies know how much data they can collect.

Though companies, such as Facebook and Google, have a direct interest in obtaining our personal information, because it relates directly to profits. The more information they know about us, the more personalised the 'ads' become, thus the more likely we are to click on them and let Facebook and Google make a profit. The majority of websites are based on advertising models, so they want to know what we like, in order to sell it to us in an add. But what if we don't want to relinquish such information? With companies like Facebook assuming that we are happy to reveal this information, as seen with their lackluster privacy policy which is about to be radically changed due to user backlash, it's hard for us to choose what information we would like to reveal and what information we want kept hidden.

Google's blatant storage of information it 'accidently' harvested from unlocked wi-fi networks when it was conducting its Streetview mapping in the US, is an example of how sometimes, these companies are happy to overstep the mark for profit. So what we need are clear rules, outlining what rights we have on the internet, and legally, what companies can obtain without our consenting. While the government's proposed internet filter is meant to weed out the nasty side of the internet, clarification about everyones rights to the internet is a more important step. Because the real danger of todays internet isn't a virus or illicit material, located on an unknown server. It's the 'legal', daylight robbery of everyones information, regardless of whether its a photo, name or search details that when complied, can track you down, that is the real threat.

As seen when people mix their digital life with their real life, things can quickly turn sour. While Facebook was only the platform and not the cause Nona Belomesoff's death, greater awareness and clarification about privacy laws can prevent other harms from occurring; such the chat-roulette location scandal. I implore the Australian government to consider outlining in great detail, the legal rights to privacy people have in this digital age. At the moment, internet based companies are evolving their services and are harvesting information faster than the legal or political system can catch up. It's time we clarified, whether we do have a right to 'digital privacy'.

Links:
Facebook bows to privacy pressure - The Age online

Teen's murder sparks Facebook privacy plea - ABC online

Forget Facebook privacy, your digital life is being monitored - National Times

US judge wants copies of Google Street View data - The Australian Online 

Rudd's ETS - a dead horse with whiplash

As much as I wanted to believe the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) would save Australia from the "climate change doesn't exist" idea of bygone days, it didn't. And it could never have. The policy was dead from the start. This 'dead horse' of a policy has been hung, drawn, quartered, minced through the media and whipped into a frenzy by Canberra. The outcome? A dead horse with whiplash, and a public being primed for an election. Considering the ETS policy's imminent death (or "delay", call it what you like), let us all revel in the bittersweet hindsight of what could have been.

It was the Kevin07 election that really got Australia governmentally, acting against climate change. With the years gone by of the Howard government still refusing to sign Kyoto, let alone admit that carbon pollution and climate change was a problem, Australia wanted change. Enter Kevin Rudd and his new government. First act by Mr Rudd, flying over to Bali and ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Finally, an Australia leader who took climate change seriously and was proactive! Next, Ross Garnaut was commissioned to produce the Garnaut report, outlining the best system that Australia could implement to reduce our carbon emissions and impact on the environment. From this, the report found an emissions trading scheme (ETS) was the best method. From within a year, there was action, vision, and a plan to tackle climate change. Everyone, including the media, was aghast at the pace the Rudd government was taking to solve climate change. Comments were even made that things were progressing too quickly. Oh, the irony now! 

As soon as the Rudd government started planning out the policy, Penny Wong (the climate change minister) was bombarded with lobby groups, the coal industry, the Liberals and Nationals, all attempting to water down the policy. The Greens, environmental lobby groups, along with the majority of the scientific and international community, were trying to set the policy to be inline with internationally accepted targets. The outcome? The coal industry, energy sector and Andrew Bolt won. A very weak, emissions target wise,  CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), was produced. It was here the vision, action and policy died. The once galloping horse was now dead. But this aside, there was the challenge of passing the bill. The Greens wanted higher targets, the Liberals and Nationals lower targets, or no ETS, CPRS or any policy at all. Squabbling, name calling, numerous amendments, an economic crisis, 3 Liberal leadership changes, angry letters to the editor and many 7.30 report appearances later, an even more watered down, delayed, yet still un-passed ETS bill, hovered somewhat like a plague in Canberra. 

Ultimately Rudd could have called a double dissolution to try and pass the bill. Even though he didn't sell it to the public that well, he still would (most likely) have remained in government to be able to call a joint sitting of parliament if need be. From all opinion polls, public support was strong enough to carry the government through to another term if a double dissolution was called. But Copenhagen loomed and we waited to see what came of it. Nothing. Big surprise. Australia took nothing to the table but empty rhetoric, and so did everyone else. From here more squabbling, name calling, amendments etc, etc, etc, were made, until recently. The clocked turned over and it was 2010, an election year. With too much controversy and failings surrounding the Rudd government on numerous policies, including the CPRS, political salvation was needed. Hence the government has come out and "delayed" (scrapped) the CPRS bill, but on the bright side $2.5 billion has been saved. Rejoice! $2.5 billion is figure more easily represented on a graph than Australia's moral obligation to act on climate change. 

And here, the poor dead horse, which had now been flogged, whipped, damned, herald and abused, is used as fertiliser for this years budget. So, still reveling in the beauty of hindsight, what should have dear Rudd have done right from the start. 

First, be tough. A first term government with large reserves of political capital and public support should not be beaten around by a (then) fragmented and cannibalistic opposition, or wealthy and morally bankrupt coal and energy sector lobby groups. The policy would have had the Greens support, and a few progressive Liberals may have crossed the floor in the Senate, enabling the bill to pass. Even if not enough support in the Senate was reached, an early double dissolution would have easily seen the Rudd government back in office, and a double sitting of parliament would have easily passed the bill. Though even if all of this hadn't been done; an ETS, despite being watered down, should have passed to ensure that Australia is continually taking action, but mainly, to motivate the main emitters like the US and China to take action. New Zealand rapidly passed an ETS scheme hours before Copenhagen, just to prove that they too are taking action and that they will hold the larger emitters to account. This form of environmental foreign policy is something that is sadly missed across this side of the Tasman Sea. 

Even as Rudd said himself, "inaction costs more than action". So shake that sauce bottle again and take a bit of your own advice. Despite the unlikelihood of the Rudd government loosing office in the next election due to the major CPRS policy and election promise backflip, continuing on the historical path of inaction, will lead only to regret.

Links:

Poor political skills doomed Rudd's climate policy - The Australian (opinion and blogs)

PM left to stew in his own juices - The Age

Government admits failing to sell ETS - The ABC online 

Greatest moral challenge turns out to be Rudd's dearest folly - National Times

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

The darker side of China's prosperity

While China is continuing to enjoy its strong economic growth that is fuelling the global economy, its intentions to "westernise" and be accepted as a good international citizen is again coming under fire. After vehemently denying the existence of "black jails", illegal detention (and sometimes torture) centres which hold civilians who attempt to make a complaint against the communist government, have formally been acknowledged by a high profile government newspaper and several officials. China continues to claim that it is improving its human rights record. However the cloud of Tienanmen Square still hangs over China and leaked reports of human rights abuses continue to plague the Chinese government.

Western nations, such as the UK, US and Australia have historically criticised China for its human rights abuses. Though as seen throughout 2009, these diplomatic condemnations of China's actions haven't occurred. Instead, because of China's economic growth, statements like this were made - "We won't let human rights get in the way of trade with China" (Hillary Clinton's statement when visiting China earlier this year). This is because of the strength of China's economy. Its newly found economic power is able to overpower international condemnation from its reliant trading partners. Western nations are also being held accountable to their human rights abuses and neglects, such as the US and Guantanamo Bay, UK and invasion of Iraq, Australia and the neglect of Indigenous Australians. Hence China's economic prosperity is able to diminish the capacity for dialogue about human rights abuses.

The recent report about human rights abuses and "black jails" however has come after much international concern and condemnation, especially from non government groups, such as Human Rights Watch, that aren't restricted in their opinion by lucrative trade deals. And with the acknowledgement of misconduct coming from a high ranking communist party paper, it signals a move by Chinese ministers that human rights abuses can not be overlooked or so easily swept under the carpet. However the reason these jails exist is just because of this. When a Chinese citizen wants to make a complaint, they must go to their local officials. These officials performance are not ranked or decided by a vote by the people in a democracy. They are judged by the amount of complaints that are made against them. Because there is little accountability within the communist government, these officials ignore and do not file these complaints. Hence these citizens who want to make a complaint must travel to the "State Bureau for Letters and Calls" in Beijing in person to make the complaint. And this is where the government employs civilian security forces to capture and detain those who have travelled to Beijing to make a complaint. About 10 000 Chinese travel to Beijing to make complaints a year. An unknown amount end up in "black jails".

While the Chinese Communist government is able to more effectively manage and regulate and economy, proven through its continued strength and resilience to bad foreign debt, it is unable to have effective accountability to the Chinese people. Millions more Chinese are enjoying to luxuries of a middle class life, such as owning a fridge, car, house and consumer technology. Though those who aren't on the 'golden coast' (East coast of China) aren't receiving these benefits. Their issues they wish to take up with their government aren't being heard, but instead they are being punished. The minor acknowledgement about these black jails is another step in revealing the failing process of accountability and transparency. China still strongly pursues its aim of internal stability, most notably created through military crackdowns (Tibet, Xijiang) and economic growth (the 'golden' East Coast). Though maybe more accountability, transparency and filing would work better than guns or money!

Links
China admits it runs illegal black jails - Telegraph.co.uk 

China must be held to account for its political repression - Guardian.co.uk

China 'running illegal prisons' - BBC News

Where in the world is Osama bin Laden?

As Barack Obama pledges to put 30,000 more US troops into Afghanistan by the start of 2010, the US Defence Secretary admits that they don't know where Osama bin Laden is, and have had no accurate intelligence about his whereabouts in years. Towards the end of Bush's presidency, and since Obama has taken office, the "war on terror" and US occupation of Afghanistan has changed from capturing and killing terrorists, to nation building and stopping Afghanistan and surrounding areas from becoming a terrorist safe haven.

This admission from Defence Secretary Robert Gates highlights the changed intentions of the US in regards to fighting terrorism, but also to the inadequacies and failures of US intelligence and military operations. It is believed that bin Laden was able to escape from the remote mountain caves of Afghanistan into boarding onto Pakistan during the 2001 invasion, because of a lack of US military concentration in that area. It makes us question the true amount of effort the US military and intelligence services put into finding bin Laden, and how serious their efforts are now. At the time of the invasion, Fox News (not the most accurate to be quoting as a common example) was reporting during the invasion of the possibility of large, underground lairs being used by al-Qaeda operatives as training facilities. Hypothetical diagrams were made to demonstrate the vastness of these caves, which included stairs, multiple levels and a hydro power generator. The very reality of the situation with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, or even all over the world, was and still is far from this fearfully fanciful prediction.

The huge al-Qaeda network the US was estimating to find was never really found. Only what was found was a very loose connection between financiers who hated the west, and people who also hated the west and were willing to kill themselves for it. Osama bin Laden only managed to blur these lines even further, by being a very supportive financier, in monetary and ideological perspectives. The widely spread opinion (mostly among conservative circles in the US and other western nations), that bin Laden and other radical terrorists are out to kill westerners, and that they are trying to get into the country now has amazingly crumbled to bits, and is now lying scattered around their ankles. The loose 'networks' that existed all shared one common trait. A hatred towards the US from invasive action and believed persecution and marginalisation from it. These "terrorists" have been shown to not exist in vast numbers, but quickly appear when poor, unemployed and disenfranchised young males believe they are being marginalised by the US. This has been proven again throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Young men fight against the US, on the belief that the US is the 'evil' invading force (often brought upon by the accidental killing of family and friends, livestock and destruction of homes due to US military activities). This has been proven again with the US drone program in Pakistan, killing 50 civilians to 1 terrorist. This has created more anti US sentiment and reason for young Pakistani men to conduct terrorist affiliated activities within the region against the US and westerners.

Hence most terrorists are not made in training camps in Afghanistan or are willing to fly planes into buildings. They are 'grown' (in the case of the UK, home grown) from actions conducted by the west against the Islamic community or particular Middle Eastern groups. The US has admitted that there is only around 100 al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan at the moment. So with the new troop surge, it isn't going to be 1,300 US troops per al-Qaeda member. It is nation building and prevention of radical groups establishing themselves with their anti western ideology in Afghanistan. The outcome of the Afghanistan war will depend on rebuilding the government, communities and the country, not finding or killing Osama Bin Laden.

So where is he now? Most likely dead. If not hiding somewhere in the remote mountains in Pakistan or anywhere in Africa. Though the real threat of terrorism doesn't come from him any more. It comes from those within the Middle East that we don't help or assist, or hurt, oppress and marginalise even more.

Links:
No news on bin Laden for years, US admits - ABC online

No Bin Laden information in years, says Gates - BBC news

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

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

How China is going green

Barack Obama's recent trip to China has set the tone for the upcoming Copenhagen conference, cue depressing funeral music! Both countries want each other to cut carbon emissions by setting binding targets, yet each don't want to do so themselves. With both countries accounting for over 40% of the worlds emissions, an agreement between these two superpowers is necessary, if any action of climate change is going to seriously occur.

Though despite the depressing tone from the APEC summit and Obama's visit to China in the lead up to Copenhagen, China appears to be making serious inroads into the fight against climate change, which may help push the US into taking a more proactive stance.

Due to the GFC (Global Financial Crisis), the world has seen a reduction in carbon emissions caused by a reduction in global production of goods. Though while stimulus packages have tried to kick start failing economies and boost up production, China has spent the largest percentage (approximately 5%) and amount, on renewable energy and environmental protection as part of its stimulus measures. For in a time in 2008 where the economy dominated the global agenda, China had the foresight to implement environmentally responsible projects and initiatives. This money, while boosting growth and assisting the environment (though to questionable measures), is a positive sign that China is willing to put the environment ahead of its economy. Though from Obama's visit, it only appears that China will do so if the rest of the world (and mainly the US) also takes a proactive stance against climate change, and just doesn't blame the largest emitter and growing emitter, China.

Even from 2008, China has continued to take steps to reduce its emissions and be a more responsible global environmental citizen. Here are just a few of the steps China is taking to reduce its emission.

• Cutting of energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% by 2010 -reduction linked with economic growth. China appears to just be making it.
• Increase renewable energy to 10% of China's energy production by 2010. 
• "Great Green Wall of China", a wall of 35 Billion trees to stop the encroaching desertification around Beijing 
• An agreement with India to work cooperatively about reducing carbon emissions
• Electrification of 64 000 stoves in homes, to stop dirty coal stoves with health and local environmental implications - however this can just hide the problem, as 70% of China's energy comes from coal fired power stations
• $150 million Sino-America clean energy research centre - however this appears to be more of a token gesture than a real step forward.  

However while China has been making steps towards protecting the climate, the effectiveness of these steps, combined with its continued growth of around 10% appears to be limited. Though with more international support and recognition that China may not just be the problem, but it is the solution, will be step that needs to be taken along with cooperation and engagement, especially from the US. So while the US has a responsibility to cut its per capita emissions (25 tonnes), China also has a responsibility to "grow green" and decrease its overall emissions (its per capita emissions stand at only 5.8 tonnes, despite China being the worlds largest polluter).

So while leadership, initiative, and promises may be called upon or made by other countries like Australia at Copenhagen, proactive action and engagement  from China, and between China and the US will be the worlds greatest hope of creating effective global action against climate change. Otherwise cue Handel's Dead March.

Links

China calls for 'serious soul searching' on climate - Times Online

Hope of  cleaner skies as Beijing Residents switch from coal to electricity - Times Online

Not-so-wonderful Copenhagen - The Economist