Gillard politically sore, but not censured

Spooner Cartoon: Courtesy of the National Times

The Gillard government can't seem to win a trick at the moment. Be it the much debated (and despised) Carbon Tax, proposal to enforce plain packaging of cigarettes, to even the Malaysian solution. All have served to only drive Labor lower in the polls. Though this outcome can be expected from a government that lacks the nuance to sell their own successes, especially in contrast to a powerfully articulate and dogmatic opposition. With the Gillard government trying to push through large, often quite unpopular policies, it has come with little surprise that a motion to condemn Gillard's "Malaysia" solution has come about.

Condemnation of government policy from the Parliament is unheard of. That is because the government of the day makes up the majority of the Parliament, and so no condemnation motions are able to pass. Though in the case of a minority government, as Gillard herself admitted, the circumstance of policy being condemned is more likely. However seeing a policy condemned, rather than it not being passed, is more interesting. Foreign policy (which the Malaysian solution comes under) is directed by the executive (Government) without the need for Parliament's approval. This means that it's the government's decision alone when it comes to foreign policy. Unlike normal policy, which gets put before the Parliament, foreign policy does not. This means that the Parliament gets very little time or place to object to it, apart from MPs and Senators airing their views in the Media. However this may change when the Greens move to propose a bill requiring refugee and asylum seeker foreign policy to be put before the Parliament, instead of leaving that power to the executive. As the minority Gillard government couldn't knock down the condemnation motion, it is most likely that they won't be able to thwart the Greens and Parliament's attempts to strip the executive of this power.

Despite the condemnation motion passing, the very motivation behind it was mere coincidence, rather than mass Parliament outrage at the Malaysia solution. The motion only got support when the Liberal/National coalition and Greens finally managed to agree on something. For the Greens, it's the view that offshore processing is inhumane and wrong. For the Liberals/Nationals, it's the view that the Labor party is just plain wrong. While the general agreement between these parties led to a condemnation of the government's policy, it wasn't strong enough to censure the Prime Minister, as the Greens thought such a move would just be a mere political "stunt". Following Tony Abbott's belittling questions to Gillard about the history of such a motion, and Julie Bishops comparison of Julia Gillard to a third world dictator, it's hard to view these comments as anything less than a stunt.

The Malaysian solution is yet again a fizzle of a policy for the Gillard government. When the Labor party isn't chasing opinion polls to ensure support, it isn't successfully managing its image of being a strong government. The merits of an 800 possible refugee swap for thousands more is ludicrous. Even though Malaysia appears to be signing up to the UNHCR, the likely hood of its signatory resulting in better treatment of human rights is a stretch.

Despite the condemnation motion, Labor (if still in government) will pursue ahead with the Malaysia solution. Maybe after that, the polls will start to pick back up. But until then, unless Labor and Gillard manage to woo the public with strong effective policy, they'll have to withstand the tense time of being down in the polls.

Links: 
PM under fire over Malaysia deal - National Times

Parliament condemns Govt on Malaysia asylum deal - The World Today: ABC online

Defiant PM says it's not about polls - National Times

Asylum-seeker swap deal must have UNHCR approval - The Australian 

PM avoids censure as Malaysia deal condemned - ABC Online

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

The inane sport of criticising politicians' sincerity

Gillard's 'sincere' response to the floods,
albeit with a prop. Image source: The Australian

Julia Gillard welled up in Parliament yesterday over the disaster that has been the Queensland floods. Tony Abbott was confronted by Channel 7 news reporters, asking for a response to his "shit happens" comment about the death of an Australian soldier in Afghanistan. Yet again, politicians are being judged on their style, spin and acting abilities, rather than the policies they are proposing. Politician baiting is becoming a tabloid sport; catching out unsuspecting politicians about their personal lives and minor gaffes, in order to elicit a response to make the front line-up of the nightly bulletin. It is a sobering thought to think that such insignificant trivialities about our politicians is what interests the general populous the most; and ultimately influences the way they vote.

After Gillard's condolence speech in Parliament yesterday, some political analysts and commentators are claiming that Gillard is finally showing her sincere and warm-heart to the flood victims. Others are more sceptical, claiming that this is just an elaborate act. People seem to be genuinely concerned about Gillard's lack of emotional response whilst she had been touring the flood affected areas. In a pure political sense, Gillard's emotional and personal response to the event shouldn't be of relevance; only her policy actions. Gillard welled up whilst reflecting on what had happened during the parliament's official condolence. Though even that is of little relevance. The PM personally cares. It's a nice thought, but it is not one that is fundamental to the overall objective of her job: to lead a government reconstruction effort. It doesn't matter how moved, touched and emotionally responsive Tony Abbott is to the Queensland floods, if his methods of reconstruction are subordinate to Gillard's. Furthermore from this, it is disgusting for the public to expect specific emotional responses from political leaders during times of crisis. Not everybody cries when they tour the aftermath of a natural disaster. Not everybody cries when they meet people who have been physically and emotionally traumatised and are desperately seeking assistance. Lots of water in Queensland, shouldn't correlate to lots of water around the eyes. Everybody has their own unique way of coping with grief, loss and trauma. Tony Abbott didn't well up in front of a TV camera, though no comment has been made about that!

Tony Abbott's recent gaffe of "shit happens" has called into question how genuine he is about the death of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Both sides of politics are very humble and sincere when it comes to Australian soldiers who have died whilst overseas. It is political suicide not to be. So under no circumstances, whilst Tony Abbott was chatting amongst Australian and US soldiers in Afghanistan, would he ever be flippant or disrespectful to any deceased Australian soldier. However "umm....well sometime shit happens doesn't it" sends a different message. It's one of flippancy and disrespect. Thus it is great for a short clip on the 6 o'clock news. Though such a comment was not taken out of context, only the "act" of him saying it was. Abbott would never utter such a phrase in Parliament or at his local church, but when having a casual chat out in a desert with Australian combat personal, Abbott changes his vernacular and actions to "extra blokey" mode.

His response however, to Channel 7s Hollywood-esque surprise interview, was completely inappropriate and personally damaging. Whether it be rage, surprise, or fear of answering a question that will make him look guilty, a Julie Bishop death stare for over 20 seconds is never good. His curt response of "you got the answer you deserve" highlighted how out of control he was within that situation. It was inappropriate of Channel 7 to accost him in such a way, though it is a politicians job to answer tough questions. He didn't answer this one, or deflect and avoided it well. It is ironically timed that Abbott should fall upon his own sword after chiding Gillard for her "tin eared" response to the Queensland floods. But such footage of Abbott saying "shit happened" shouldn't have been repressed, like the Liberal Party did with footage of Abbott shooting a firearm with Australian soldiers. They claimed it would "send the wrong message". Political parties shouldn't be able to control the public image of their constituents if they're running for office, and if that is what the public (regrettably) wants to know about.

What is becoming increasingly clear however, is the media and publics fixated attention on Gillard and her appearance. If she is not being criticised for a lack of crying and being emotional, the Australian or a tabloid will criticise her ever changing hair or whether she carries a purse. Even her dress was criticised whilst she toured flood affected Queensland towns. Since Gillard is a woman, whose dress sense will alter unlike the standard suit and tie for men, in the eyes of the public, there is more to critique. If Gillard is being too masculine in her dress sense and attitude in the chamber, she will be criticised for being bullish. Though if she lacks the "effeminate capabilities" of crying, she doesn't have a heart. Whilst never explicitly exploiting her gender in her campaign to become PM, people are happy to do that for her. Amanda Vanstone's only positive comment about Julia Gillard on Q&A (7/2/11) was that she was "a role model for young girls to look up to and say.... I can do that". If all young woman have to look up to is a PM being constantly criticised for her appearance as a result of her gender, then it doesn't offer much encouragement for ambitious young females wanting to enter the world of politics.

Julia Gillard's tears in parliament yesterday may be genuine, or they may have been put on after much criticism about her emotional response to the floods disaster. Her political commitment to help reconstruct Queensland however, is sincere. Tony Abbott's choice of phrasing whist talking to soldiers in Afghanistan was a strategic act. Though his political position of respecting the family and dignity of Australian soldiers killed in action, is sincere. Politicians act. But when the public deeply care about appearances and spin, the substance starts to get lost. This inane sport of critiquing the theatre of politics and judging the politicians of their performance, is damaging to government, and ludicrous at best. Don't text in your views about Gillard or Abbott's media performance. This is politics, not 'Canberra's got talent!'.

Links: 
Tears flow as Julia Gillard gets real - National Times

Flood victims bring Prime Minister Julia Gillard to tears - The Australian 

PM defends response to flood - The Age

Gillard the actor: Q&A Question 7/2/11 - Q&A website
Reporter asks question, Abbott loses it - National Times

Abbott's frozen fury lingers beyond his words - National Times