Appearing to act on whales

It is an election year. Need I say more! And suddenly whales are on the Government's agenda. Kevin Rudd took to the 07 election, the promise to clamp down on Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. However during his time in office until now, the closest he got to Japan on the issue of whaling was, 'an agreement to disagree'. However despite this recent, very strong threat to Japan to take them to the International Court of Justice, effective action is unlikely to be taken.

With Tony Abbott creeping up in the polls, a dead ETS and Peter Garret about to fall of his political perch, this is not a safe time for the Labor Government. Rudd and Labor have the election this year in their sights (along with the opposition as well), and so they need to polish up their record of election promises. Hence, enter stage right, whales!

The Rudd government's inaction about Japan's whaling just outside of Australian waters and in the Antarctic is a 'small matter' that they want to easily fix. When it comes to an election, having the public faithfully believe that you are going to deliver on said promises is critical. As such, whaling is an unfulfilled promise that the Labor government is trying to quickly resolve (or appear to resolve), so it's fresh in the back of the minds in the public when the election really heats up. Delivering on promises about stopping Japan whaling is not going to be the hot election issue of the year. Instead, the government is hoping to use it as a platform to build up credibility. It's just ticking off the check list, so to speak.

Delivering on foreign policy right before an election is never advisable. Foreign policy is a slow, fickle process that can't easily be wrapped up by the time an election is to be called. However, appearing to be active and effective in implementing foreign policy, is relatively easy. Rudd is threatening to take Japan to the ICJ (International Court of Justice) in the next whaling season if it doesn't promise to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean. Firstly, getting to the ICJ and getting a ruling against Japan is a slow and difficult process (something that is going to take more than a year). Even if ruled against, Japan will still not adhere to the ruling (as all rulings by the ICJ are non binding - hooray to the effectiveness of international justice!). But secondly, Japan might win the case and increase whaling, or just as worse, loose, then walk out of the International moratorium on whaling altogether, allowing Japan to whale whatever, and whenever it pleases them. Taking Japan to the ICJ is a risky business, and one that could go horribly wrong just before an election

However Kevin Rudd's strong new rhetoric about taking Japan to the ICJ is not about stopping whaling, it's about appearing to be stopping whaling. The very process of filling out the paperwork, sending diplomats to Japan and the Hague, as well as Australia's Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, meeting up with Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada in Perth is enough. In an election, appearance is everything, and this is no exception. Whales are not the issue here, the election and appearance of being active is!

Kevin Rudd has been criticised for almost everything; pushing legislation through parliament too fast, being the political spin doctor, not spinning and being able to sell the ETS, not being able to manage the economy, being too concerned about the economy....etc. Politician's can never get every promise and piece of legislation they want through parliament just as they want it be. However, what differentiates a good politician from the rest, is not how grandiose their promises are, but how effective they are within office, dealing with legislation and all the other hurdles that come their way. Pity its called hindsight. 

LINKS:

Australia tells Japan: Stop whaling or face court - BBC news
Rudd issues whaling court action deadline - ABC online

Rudd sets whaling deadline for Japan - The Age

There is a reason why you can't "do what you used to do"

It seems in popular culture, that the most successful sports stars are bound for an ultimate fall from grace. This fall is relished in the media. Posted everywhere, it fuels the popularity of tabloids and magazines.  If you need a recent example, you can't go past Tiger Woods. All he did to start the 'falling process' was crash his car! However this idolising then demonising of public sports stars is dangerous to the general publics perceptions about the 'high life' sports stars lead, dangerous to the sports stars perceptions about themselves, but most dangerous to the most vulnerable media consumers, children and teenagers. But despite this, the very culture of these sports (particularly certain clubs in the AFL and NRL) must stop. You can not have a group in society that believe they are more above the law than others. Especially when such a group is as influential, and identifiable as particular sports and clubs.

Most recently in the news, AFL player, Geelong star Mathew Stokes has been on charges of drug trafficking and possession. Though one day before, Nick Maxwell, captain of Collingwood Football club made these comments.

"the game is getting bigger...you just can't do what you used to do" 

"you can't go out and enjoy yourself"

I'll make comment on this later, but for further quotes, check out the link at the bottom of the post.

The effects of sports players behaving badly in or out of public is a driving force behind binge drinking culture, violence and general flouting of the law. A culture that is misogynistic towards women, a culture with no respect, no decency or value. This is because sports players are idolised within society. A man who can kick goals, or score tries better than any other is highly valued. Demonstrating their "masculine capabilities" to mates, on or off the field through violence, sexual assault, recklessness and disregard for the law is not overly expected, but it has been ingrained into the culture of the sport to the point it becomes traditional. While formally within the sport it is acknowledged as a "bad thing", it is also frequently noted how talented these 'stars' are, and how sad it is that their careers might be over, etc. To that I say, so what! The message this mopey babbling sends - if you're influential and you stuff up, that seems to cover it for the wrong deeds you've done. Whether a derelict or Demons player, you can't break the law! It would be safe to say most people wish to live the "high life", to be famous and well loved. People aspire to be like these 'role models', hence their actions are made less shocking or bad, because they have so much talent.

The publics perception that sport stars are larger than life, indestructible gods of worship because of their amazing talents, only further fuels these players egos' about themselves. A culture within some clubs and groups that has been festering away over the years. While these players happily take the credit, fame and fortune from their talented works, which I am not denying is any easy feat by all means, they also need to take with it greater responsibility. Responsibility to behave. If they so choose to continue their massive careers and continue playing, but can't handle the media and public pressure, or are being swept away on their own egotistical fantasies, then deal with it! See a councilor, maybe try to be less of a public figure, don't drink (because then you can't get drunk and do something stupid). Just as sports men and women can't continue competing and representing their club because they are not fit or able enough, neither should they continue if they are not fit and able enough to handle the pressure. I'm not advocating that this handling of pressure would be easy, but the alternatives are never acceptable.

The greatest harm these "bad" role models do is to distort the reality of the real world to children and young teenagers. The capacity to think beyond ones actions to the consequences are hard enough for adults to comprehend, let alone children or teenagers. The court ruling 6 months later is ignored, or doesn't mean as much as holding the premiership cup or winning the gold medal. The fame and fortune, "enjoyment" these 'stars' on the field, track or pool is valued more, and remembered more to the point they (can) believe they are perfect. It is barely reasonable, if not bad parenting, to try and explain what "sexual assault" or "drug trafficking" to a young fan. Some blame the media for all the hype that is created about idolised sport stars behaving badly, however, if these public figures never behaved badly in the first place, there would be no reports. Even though the majority of sports players don't behave badly, the effects of just a few is enough to send the wrong message.

Lastly, I would like to look more closely at Nick Maxwell's words he mentioned on the 2nd Feb.

(1) "you just can't do what you used to do" just doesn't cut it. Sexual assault, pack rape, indecent exposure, drunken binge drinking cruises and events, defecating in public, assault and violating the law was never acceptable then, and isn't acceptable now. If you do step out of line, yes you will be made into a media spectacle, however you also wish to be a spectacle in your own right. If you want to demonstrate how great you are, put it into practice on and off the field.

(2) If "you can't go out and enjoy yourself" by getting drunk, taking drugs or breaking the law, either go to Amsterdam or redefine and you think "enjoyment" is. There has been members of the community try to provoke violent brawls, but a) not getting drunk b) not putting yourself in a situation where you could be provoked or attacked, prevents such harms. The President of the US can't just go for an "enjoyable" stroll around Washington whenever he likes, he most likely would be attacked. So if not going to a pub or club means your safe, and your precious career is too, then deal with it.

These players put themselves up onto public scrutiny. It is part of their job. While not everyone is perfect, simply obeying the law and setting a reasonable example does more good for the community than a few hundred dollars being thrown at a local children's sports club. While the media shouldn't glorify and defame these players and athletes in the shameless way they do, the problems starts, and can end at the source. The person breaking the law or making a debacle of themselves.

Links
Sports stars' bad behaviour shouldn't be rewarded - The Age

Media scrutiny will cause players to walk: Nick Maxwell - The Herald Sun

Will AFL Football Players Ever Learn? - aflfootyblog.com
NRL men behaving badly - The Daily Telegraph

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