Respect and Political Fear

The father of modern political thought, Thomas Hobbs, who wrote in the early 1600s, believed strongly in the power of the state, as the overreaching “Leviathan”, which kept watch over the citizens below. To Hobbs, power rested with the state through the introduction of what he termed the “Social Contract”. In simple terms, the social contract states that the people of a nation will give up certain rights and freedoms in exchange for the rule of law and security by the state. One of the greatest “rights” given up was that of violence, which only the state then had the right to use. Only the state could resort to violence, and violence, according to Hobbs, was an instrument of the state to maintain law and order. Agents of the state, such as the police, military, and intelligence services could be given the right to use violence if necessary in order to maintain order.

Hobbs believed that there were two alternatives to the Human race. Either a population would give up part of their power to a central government, which Hobbs believed to be unaccountable for their actions, or anarchy and chaos would result. This anarchy and chaos was what Hobbs termed the “natural state” of man, and was driven by what he saw as the relentless pursuit of man for power.

Hobbs saw civilization, and the power of a central government, as integral to preventing this violent anarchical struggle which mankind would fall into by default.

This view is not new with Hobbs, however. Machiavelli before him wrote on power, and the use of such by a state. Thousands of years before, the Bible itself wrote of the early formation of the Jewish state as being in such a state of anarchy. The story is told in the book of Judges, for example, of the tribe of Dan who came across a household with precious goods and idols which they promptly took by force and threats. The story goes that they tribe then proceeded to seize territory by massacring the inhabitants of a peaceful city as they were stronger and of greater numbers. Further in the book, the story is told of a full breakdown of law and order in a city with travellers being accosted and killed, leading to a civil war in Israel. All through the book of Judges, there is story after story of acts of violence taking place just because one party was stronger than the other.

The book of Judges ends with the quote that “In those days, there was no King in Israel, so every man did what was right in his own eyes”.

Indeed, this is the very definition of anarchy, and would seem to support Hobbs belief that a central order was necessary to keep this natural state from developing.

Going on in history, we find that any society or civilization goes through this stage of the strong overpowering the weak, and then creating a ruling order to centralize their power over the nation. Warfare then became the instrument of the state, and was used against other weaker nations. If we fast-forward in history, we can see the results of a collapsed state which is experiencing anarchy in such failed states as Somalia, where the natural order can be seen. Indeed, whenever there is a breakdown in the power of the state, chaos and anarchy seem to follow.

During the last 60-70 years, politics and political thought has experienced another revolution. With the formation of the United Nations was established a principle of Human Rights. For much of history, up until the Treaty of Westphalia, warfare was a legitimate tool of statecraft. Leading up to the end of the First World War, there was a desire among many European nations to never again see such a war take place. Thus, treaties such as the Treaty of Paris were signed, which forbade wars of aggression. Interestingly enough, both Japan and Germany were signatories to this treaty, which was flagrantly broken during the Second World War.

With the Second World War, the concept of genocide came into popular focus. While genocide was not a new concept by any means, the extermination campaigns of the Nazi party against Jews shocked the world like never before.

With the establishment of the United Nations, Human Rights were introduced. Political thought recognized that states do not always fulfil their side of the Social Contract which was introduced by Hobbes, and misuse their power against their own citizens. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations laid out 30 rights that citizens have, including freedom from persecution, protection of women and children, right of religion, and right of free expression in Government.

However, the UN upheld by social contract theory of Hobbs by stating that

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.  (UN Charter Article 29)

Thus, these freedoms are limited by the expression of the rights and freedoms of others, social morality, and public order and general welfare.

However, where does the line exist between the establishment of order and the will of the population? If the natural order exists in the absence of a centralized government, as Hobbes predicted, where do current protest movements ranging from the Arab Spring to the Occupy Movement sit?

Last year, at the start of the Libyan civil war, I wrote on this blog that Libya faced an uncertain future if Gadhafi was removed. The danger of a power vacuum being created existed then, and exists even more so now. Egypt has experienced a similar crisis, with the Mubarak regime being removed, but with an uncertain political future now existing.

In the opinion of Australia’s foremost expert on Libya and perhaps on the Arab Spring, Dr Sally Totman, the Arab Spring has accomplished very little actual good to the general population. In both Libya and Egypt, the ruling elites now are the same as before the rebellion. In Egypt it is the military who supported Mubarak, but who threw him to the wolves when international tide turned against him. In Libya, it is the old supporters of Gadhafi who once again turned against him with the general tide.  Syria has been in a state of anarchy and civil war for almost a year, with extremist influences such as Al Qaeda becoming more and more active in the country.

The mood of the Arab Spring has turned from one of optimism and change to one of cynicism and discontent. In Libya, the united tribes are beginning to turn on each other, with violent encounters occurring, and little attempt to create a stable state. In Egypt, there have been protests after protests against the current ruling body, to no avail. A general malevolent atmosphere has settled over the Middle East, setting in motion attempts by regional power brokers to seize greater support for themselves.

In short, the Arab Spring has turned into an Arab Winter, with few of the goals of the revolution being achieved, and only the figureheads of a regime being taken away.

But why are such movements gaining traction? Why are people, especially in the West, dissatisfied with their life, and are willing to take up action against the Government that they elected into power?

Hobbes, in his theory, considered greatly the idea of fear in politics. To Hobbes, mankind was driven by fear, and the greatest fear according to Hobbes was the fear of death. As the state was the only entity with the legitimate use of violence through the justice system against its own people, Hobbes held that fear was a necessary part of a stable society – fear of the sovereign and the consequences of acting against him. Machiavelli stated this also by posing the theoretical question “Should a Prince strive to be feared or loved?” His answer was very diplomatic:

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.   

To both Hobbes and Machiavelli, a certain fear of the sovereign powers should always be present in the citizenship. Not hatred, but a certain fear of acting against them. The responsibility of the state, under the social contract, was not to move against their people unjustly or to attempt to use unjust force against them.

It may be argued that such revolutions as in Syria are a response to attempts by the Government to use unjust force against those protesting. It may also be argued that such force by the population is not unjust, even under a Hobbesian model, as Hobbes always held that citizens should have the right of self-preservation, even through use of violence.

My argument, however, is far more pragmatic. In countries experiencing the Arab Spring, the Government did incite a culture of fear surrounding them. The general citizens were afraid of their governments, and with good reason. However, attempts to attack the government were not in response to actions by the Government. In Libya, Syria, and Egypt, there were no attempts by the state to engage in hostile action against the general population. Dissenters may have been treated harshly, however in the political climate these states existed in, such actions often were seen as necessary to keep order. In Libya, for example, harsh measures defeated the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, pushing them to the table to negotiate peace. In Egypt, they kept an undercurrent of fanaticism and terrorism controlled for decades.

It is said that desperate situations call for desperate measures, and this is what we have seen in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Were they democracies? No. Were they necessarily a kind and welcoming regime? No. Did human rights abuses occur? Most probably yes. However, these were no worse than others in the region, and may be argued were a strategy by the government to ensure a stable society. The validity of such a revolution can be argued either way.

But what about Australia, Europe, and the US? Is there any reason for protest and revolt in these countries? I would say, absolutely not. I can speak from an Australian perspective, as that is what I am most familiar with. In Australia, there is a country which is one of the richest in the world. The economy has continued to be strong, and the recession did not nearly hit Australia as hard as other parts of the world. Australia as a social system which is large and generous, with public health cover, myriads of  government grants, and a unemployment system which enables one to effectively live without working productively. In short, life in Australia is mostly prosperous. Even counting in people’s bad decisions, it is not hard to survive in this country. And yet, we see violent protests in capital cities across Australia. We see a mob like attack on Australia’s elected Prime Minister. We see groups representing a large number of interests all attacking the government.

Here is where the concept of fear must be introduced. People must respect and fear their elected government, while at the moment, this lack of fear emboldens the protesters. With the attack on the Prime Minister in Canberra, no arrests were made, no person was charged, and very little attempt was made to disperse the rioters. With the Occupy protests, clashes in Melbourne resulted in attacks on serving Police Officers by protesters who flatly refused to obey direct orders by the state.

With the previous Melbourne G20 riots in 2006, Australian protesters assaulted police, destroyed property, attacked police vans, and generally engaged in public rioting.

Why do riots occur? They occur because there is no respect or fear left of the government. And this is partly the government’s fault. As with a child, the child must have a certain respect and sometimes even fear of the consequence of their actions in order to be brought up properly. If this respect for authority, and fear of consequences of bad behaviour is not present, the natural order of things will take place.

This natural order of things, this anarchy which is dreamed about by the left is a lie. It is a utopian concept which will result in public disorder and chaos. One can say that the most free society on earth is Somalia, or similar states with a breakdown of law and order. But my question is: “Is that what we want to live in?”

The Picture of Anarcy.

A Nuclear House of Saud?

The power structure in the Middle East has changed radically during the last two years. During this time, political leaders in numerous countries; Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen fell from power or fled to avoid the fate of their comrades in Egypt or Libya. President Assad in Syria, rather than face trial by his people for human rights abuses has determined to fight for his position, leading to what can be only described as a de facto state of civil war in the country. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran, even Israel have seen their own protests and uprisings, however leaders in all countries have managed to hold onto power.

While Neo Conservatives in America may have first painted a rosy picture of democracy springing into the Middle East, the actual fact is that the current political systems, and even the future ones, will be very unlike the commonly accepted Western view of democracy. Only a small percentage of Libyan opposition groups have openly accepted democracy as a future political view, with the majority of Libyans rejecting democracy as a political system.

In Egypt, the most popular political party is the Muslim Brotherhood, who is steadfastly anti democratic. Indeed, the Brotherhood has come a long way from its past, when it was the umbrella group for the majority of extremist and terrorist groups, including many of the earlier members of Al Qaeda. While the Brotherhood may have technically forsaken violent action for political process, it does not mean for a moment that the group has become pro American and pro Democratic.

 

The Arab Spring

While the Middle East was once composed of many pro American governments, including those of Mubarak, it now has taken a strongly anti American turn. Even anti American governments such as Libya were a known entity. America knew how to handle Kaddafi. But the old known systems have now been replaced with an uncertain system which has not yet shown its true colours. The lines between friend and enemy are now broken, and American interests in the Middle East are now threatened.

With the American withdrawal from Iraq, American attention is now focused further upon Asia and Iran, while the Middle East (with the exclusion of the straits of Hormuz) have become less crucial to American interests.

American allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, have expressed concern regarding this recent shift of focus of American might. With the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, another American ally, the Saudi royals have expressed concern about the future security of their country. The belief is that American forces will not prevent a similar takeover in Saudi Arabia as what occurred in Egypt.

Saudi Arabia at the moment is extremely concerned regarding possible Iranian involvement in creating disturbance in the country through the minority Shiite population. There have already been several attacks against Saudi interests by Shiite terrorists. As the most significant source of oil in the region, and the most reliable as Iranian supply is becoming increasingly unstable, Saudi Arabia  is the major supplier of global oil at the moment. Surrounded by a hostile and an increasingly ambitious Turkey to the north, an uncertain Egypt to the West, a chaotic Yemen to the South, and an openly hostile Iran to the East, Saudi Arabia has found itself in an increasingly bad neighbourhood.

To add to the problems that Saudi Arabia faces, it is widely seen in the Arab world as an American puppet and as a corrupt and secular government, who is more interested in oil profits from the Americans than in assisting Muslims in the region. The Muslim world sees Saudi Arabia as a traitor who has taken American money in exchange for allowing American troops to desecrate the Holy Land by building military bases in the country. In addition, Saudi Arabia is seen as doing nothing to prevent the regional power of Israel from growing. Thus, the Saudi royal family is a top target for groups such as Al Qaeda.

 

With the withdrawal of American troops from the region, and the increasing belief that American protection will not cover the Kingdom, Saudi Arabia has begun to seek defensive capacities from other sources.

While traditionally the House of Saud sought weapons and defensive capacities from the United States, it is recently begun to approach other countries such as China for defensive and offensive weapons.

The deal which alarmed Washington the most was that of the Saudi purchase of Chinese CSS-5 missiles to replace the CSS-2 missiles purchased from China in the 1980s. While these reports are not officially confirmed, they do align with the Saudi intent to develop nuclear capacity in response to Iranian developments. The deal maker for this, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, has been the Saudi go to man for any business of this nature for the last 20 years.

The CSS-5 missile is a 2 stage solid propellant type, launcher based rocket, with a range of over 2,000 km. The missile can carry a HE warhead, or a more lethal chemical payload or a 250 – 500 kT nuclear tipped payload.

With the map below, you can see the radius of the new missiles sought by Saudi Arabia. Once launched, the missile can hit any target with a great degree of accuracy in almost the entire Middle East. Iran is almost totally covered by this radius, as is Israel, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and a good part of Turkey.

 

Range of the CSS V

 

The damage potentially caused by a 250 kT nuclear warhead on either Tehran or Tel Aviv is shown below.

Tehran

Tel Aviv

 

As seen, a large portion of the city would be destroyed, leading to potentially tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties. By contrast, the atomic weapon dropped on Hiroshima was only 16 kT.

Saudi Arabia knows that the deciding factor in the Iran Iraq War was a massive Scud strike upon Tehran by Iraq, which effectively stopped the Iranians from progressing into Iraq. Such a similar strategy of missile war would therefore be attractive in the event that Iran threatened Saudi Arabia with a missile attack.

Iran does have the capacity to strike at Saudi Arabia with it’s Shahab 3 missile with a range of up to 1,800 km. While the Shahab 3 does not have the accuracy or range of the CSS-5, it can hold a nuclear payload of up to 800 kT, far greater than the CSS-5. There are rumours of either a Satellite Launch Weapon or the disputed Shahab 4, with a purported range of up to 3000 km being developed by Iran.

The status of Iran’s nuclear enrichment process is unknown, but wildly speculated. Even if Iran did develop the “bomb”, Saudi Arabia would feel the necessity to develop a nuclear deterrent of its own. To the House of Saud, having both its rivals in the region, Israel and Iran, with nuclear weapons, it would be unacceptable to not have the same capacity.

The most likely source of weapons grade fissionable material by the Saudis would be either a locally produced version or through direct purchase. Saudi Arabia has committed to building over 10 new nuclear reactors in the country in the coming years, which may be for civilian power, but which may easily be turned into military use.

A cheaper and easier alternative may be direct purchase of either nuclear materials or nuclear know how. The Pakistani government and Saudi Arabia have held long ties together, and with the nuclear network of former scientist Dr Khan from Pakistan, it is possible that Saudi Arabia has either already acquired nuclear material from Pakistan or is in the process of doing so. Khan is known to have had dealings with the Kingdom before his arrest. Even if the Saudi’s have not already purchased material, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Islamabad would provide such materials to their ally in the region.

The development of a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia is not a prospect which will generate further peace in the Middle East. The impact of such an action, along with a possible scenario if this occurred will be discussed in a further post.

 

World Missile Fleet

When Robin Hood Turns Evil

You all remember Robin Hood right? Fictional English character who was maligned by Mel Brooks and recently played by Russell Crowe?

Yes, This One.

Mythical or not, Robin Hood represented to many the quintessential struggle between the weak and powerful, between the rich and the poor. In reality, far from being a dashing figure supporting the poor by stealing from the rich with a smile, Robin Hood, if he even existed, was nothing more than a thieving ruffian, not too dissimilar from a guy rolling a 7-11 for loose change.

And yet, the legend of Robin Hood has come down as a man fighting against evil, Robin Hood, the criminal, is now Robin Hood the hero. With a growing tide of welfare funded and bored teenagers trying to find an identity in protesting against whatever power structure they can see, the ghost of Robin Hood is returning. From completely insane attempts to blatantly steal from banks through the so called “Robin Hood Tax” to the spirit of the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters, a concept of stealing from the rich to give to the poor is one which appeals to the anarchist supporters who criticize society from the air conditioned lecture halls of liberal arts degrees and Starbucks cafes.

I have no idea of how the banking system works!

But the Robin Hood Tax and Wall Street have to wait for another day.

The topic for today’s article is that of the new breed of vigilantism, aka “blatant theft and destruction of property”.

And, not surprisingly, this concept of anarchism against all power and authority began with an attempted terrorist attack and a Hollywood Movie.

In 1605, the so called Gunpowder Plot, an attempt by Guy Fawkes and supporters to blow up the English House of Lords, was thwarted by English authorities. This terrorist attack was planned by Guy Fawkes in the name of the Catholic Church and the Pope, as revenge against Protestant England. Guy Fawkes hoped that the blow would trigger a major uprising of English Catholics against the Protestant government, bringing down the political structure.

While the attack was apprehended, and Guy Fawkes was hung as a traitor, his spirit lived on, and now, the Bin Laden of his day is now lauded as a hero by those who share his spirit of anarchist rebellion.

The revival of the Guy Fawkes plot into modern society began with the comic book series “V for Vendetta”, which was later unfortunately made into a major motion picture. The motion picture, which seems to have inspired much of the stupidity surrounding protests in recent years, tells the story of a criminal and terrorist err freedom fighter “V” who wears a “Guy Fawkes” mask, commits acts of terror, murder, and insurrection, and then finally dies a hero fighting against a corrupt government which crumbles through popular resistance and protest.

The persona of this character has been taken on by both the Occupy Wall Street protesters

and by another, more mysterious, but equally menacing entity: The apply named Anonymous (Anon). Anon is a misunderstood entity, like a virus or bacteria, it is constantly moving, spreading, and growing, without a central nervous system, goal, or even strategy. Anonymous is the name of a band of internet activists or vigilantes. With the World Wide Web being the new Wild Wild West, Anonymous fills the role of the new modern day outlaw or bandit.

And we are all worse off because of it.

We are also retarded

Anonymous members are a secretive bunch, always hiding behind, you guessed it, a Guy Fawkes mask, engaging in hit and run attacks on their targets, and then bragging about doing so on Twitter, Youtube, and Internet message boards.

Loosely associated with the infamous message board 4chan (seriously, don’t go there unless you like making friends with Federal Agents), Anonymous have engaged in a variety of high profile raids and attacks upon websites and servers belonging to companies or governments they decide are oppressive.

A partial list of their exploits:

• Organising protests and attacks against the Church of Scientology
• Invasion and Attacks on the Epilepsy Foundation message boards (for reasons best known only to Anon)
• Iranian election protests in 2009
• Attacks upon the Australian government websites including the webpage of PM Rudd, the Parliamentary Homepage, and others in response to the Australian resolution to censor ISP content to block illegal materials

• Operation Payback : In response to the backlash against Julian Assange, Anonymous launched a fullscale assault upon companies they saw as opposing Wikileaks, including VISA, Amazon, Paypal, and Sony which included Denial of Service Attacks upon corporate websites.
• Operation Arab Spring: In this attack, Anonymous took down the website of the Syrian Ministry of Defence as a token of support for the insurrection by the Syrian people.

In all of these attacks, Anonymous is little more than a cross between a high school bully and a vandal who spraypaints graffiti on the wall of a building. They look upon themselves as the modern day Robin Hoods, fighting against oppression, but they come off looking more like a screaming chimpanzee flinging mud and sticks.

One of the largest, and possibly the most far reaching attacks by Anonymous, however, has been the recent attack on Stratfor.

Stratfor has been called the “Shadow CIA”, and is a global open source intelligence firm which both provides free intelligence updates, intelligence reports and briefings on a daily basis, along with research articles for their paid subscribers, and finally intelligence services for a number of government agencies and corporate bodies.

The site has been in existence for a number of years, and is highly regarded both in and out of government for their intelligence analysis and reports on economic, military, law enforcement, and counter terrorist topics.

In December 2011, Anonymous, in association with other cyber criminal units attacked Stratfor, claiming that the website was part of the oppressing elite by supporting the US intelligence bodies. At the end of the attack, up to 200 GB of data was stolen, along with the credit card numbers and personal information of 860,000 subscribers, including my own.

It was a rude shock the day after Christmas to learn about the attack. I am a paid subscriber to Stratfor, as I find their research and analysis extremely useful in my studies. To then find that the site had been compromised by Anonymous, a group I have long held in derision and contempt, and that my personal data had been stolen by this gang of thieves, was most galling.

By the way, the mental state of these monkeys can be see at the following, where they have uploaded to the internet the entire contents of their theft.

http://pastebin.com/f7jYf5Wd

Take a moment to read through their post, I urge you, and then ask yourself if this is the rantings of a rational and intelligent mind?

After the theft of this information, Anonymous proceeded to drain as many credit cards as they could, donating the money to charities such as the Red Cross. Little did these modern day Robin Hoods think, but receiving stolen funds isn’t really in the Red Cross’s bag of tricks. The end result were increased charges for the Red Cross, as every single donation had to be returned and the Red Cross was charged individually for every one. Along with the associated time and expense required to track down every donation and return it, Anonymous may just as well looted the Red Cross.

To this date, Stratfor remains closed, with all subscribing members given a year’s free subscription to an online identity protection program.

However, hopefully anonymous has finally stepped on enough toes to justify a swift response against these idiots. Along with people such as myself who lost personal information, other subscribers include Malcolm Turnbull, David Smorgon, former US Vice President Daniel Quayle, Henry Kissinger, and former CIA director Jim Woolsey.

Stealing the credit card details of the man who ordered the bombing of Cambodia and a director of the Central Intelligence Agency? If Anonymous are lucky they will find themselves on an express trip to a certain US Navel Base in Cuba.

But what is the real result of such internet theft? How many of the 860,000 people who had their credit card details stolen were evil people bent on world domination and suppression? These would include academics, law enforcement officials, think tanks, students, and journalists. What is the justification for attacking them? What is the justification of costing banks millions of dollars as they cancel and replace credit cards, as my bank as done to mine (so don’t go looking for my card information!).

If the truth be told, Anonymous is little different than a shadow criminal organisation. Theft and extortion is just that. It is not couched in the romantic notion of good vs evil. It is not a struggle of the rich against the poor. It is the struggle of the criminal against the rest of society. And unfortunately, the rest of society has to pay the price for this.

Anonymous can bleat as long as they can that they are only attempting to protect people’s identities by exposing security holes. But at the end of the day, let us call a spade a spade.

I think that Michael Lee said it best:

I like hearing when companies pay the price for lax security, but in the case of Stratfor, proving that someone’s security is weak by spilling everyone’s details is like peeing your pants to prove your parents aren’t supervising you. It might feel good and warm at first, but you ultimately end up being the loser.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/why-we-all-lost-in-the-stratfor-hack-339328821.htm

 

 

New Years Resolutions To Increase your IQ

Dear Citizens of the World.

This is Human Civilization and Decency, and after 2011, I am unhappy to inform you that I am most unhappy and displeased with both your attitude towards me and your general behaviour in regards to our relationship.

Now, I understand that as a society, your average IQ has been decreasing drastically over the years, and will continue to do so, thanks to day time TV, Jersey Shore, Google, and MTV.

So, I shouldn’t be too hard on you I guess. With IQ falling exponentially with a rising population, this means that more and more people are falling into the below average category. So, like a special needs individual, a lot of leeway should be granted.

But, people! At least try to be intelligent! I realize that being intelligent, and making choices which aren’t dictated by Lil Wayne or the Simpsons may be difficult, but let’s work together on this. I really really really want to see a better society, and a more intelligent world population in 2012. To accomplish this I have suggested a few New Years Resolutions which you can make. Just try some. Believe me, I will be happy if you even take one on board, as that will limit the assault on the existence of sense and decency.

Resolution 1 – I Will Get My News from Different Sources

While the news was once the highlight of an evening, with families crowding around at 6pm to hear about the goings on in the world, news today has been replaced with a mindless ballyhoo of shoddy reporting of issues which can be broken down into four categories:

1. Sports
2. celebrities and Entertainment
3. Shock and Awe Reporting
4. Filler Stories

Instead of getting the news straight from whatever usual outlet you use, why not actually subscribe to some feeds from other news agencies? Take Al Jazeera, Russia Today, CNN along with your Australian news. It is easy to subscribe to feeds from these, and the top stories can be emailed directly to your inbox every day. It won’t take more than 10 minutes a day to skim the top stories, and you will have a much better understanding of current events and world stories.

Cut down on the sports news, and if you can, cut down completely on gossip, celebrity, and entertainment news. We are trying to raise your IQ here, remember?

Pro Tip: Following This Will Not Raise Your IQ

Also, keep in mind that reading political blogs (such as this one!), statements by special interest groups, and so called “grassroots news” outlets may be fascinating and will most likely provide your mind with stimulating fare, however they are most often biased and there to report only one side for whatever point the author is trying to score.

Which brings me onto my next point:

Resolution 2 – “There Is No Free Lunch and I will stop expecting one”

You would think after thousands of years of civilization, humanity would realize that nothing is free in the world, nothing is what it seems, and things “too good to be true” are prefaced with this prefix for a reason.

And yet, day by day, we are offered fantastic prizes, opportunities, and wins that we have done nothing whatsoever to deserve, but which have fallen into our lap by a stroke of fortune. Spend 1/2 an hour on the internet, and you will most likely be offered free iPads, free money, free phones, free horoscopes, or free job offers.

A quick look through my email spam inbox gives me offers for the following:

1. Discount Canadian Medication
2. “Opportunities to Win Huge Payouts” at Club VIP Gambling
3. A “Well Paid Job” of $51,000 a year from a guy with a .yahoo.com email address
4. A Free Dell Laptop
5. A Free Subway Sandwich

Now, with the exception of possibly the free sandwich, I highly doubt that any of the above offers are going to come true for me. Even the free sandwich would require me to sign up for spam email, possibly download 6 viruses onto my computer, fill out 20 forms about insane topics, and then in the fine print inform me that the free sandwich is 6 inches, has no toppings, and has been on the floor for most of the day.

In 2012, remember that there is no Prince wanting to give you piles of money, no company willing to give you free stuff when you download their favourite spyware, no handsome partner who will fly into your arms if you send him or her $20,000 in cash, and no start up company willing to offer you a job sight unseen for big money.

Point is, scammers play on people’s emotions, their greed, their fear of missing out, their natural trust of other human beings. Don’t keep falling for these society!

Also on the topic of a free lunch, don’t expect one from life either. Our friends at Occupy Wall Street may make as much noise as possible, but the fact still remains that if you want something : money, skills, popularity, even a higher IQ, you have to work at it. Life won’t hand it to you for free.

This New Year, your resolution should include a clause where you promise to stop expecting a free ride and also a promise to refrain from complaining when you do not get one.

Resolution 3 – “I Will Ignore Idiots”

Remember when idiot behaviour used to be politely ignored and the idiot was either quietly reprimanded or publicly condemned, depending on the scale of the idiocy? Lately, it appears as if the idiot is the new “Homo Novus”, the next stage of human development. Now, the idiot can get massive public interest in his actions. He or she can get a book deal, TV show, prime time TV, and even public support for their stupidity. Even if most of society points at the idiot and loudly condemns them, they keep coming back for more of the same.

The idiot doesn’t care about being condemned. He knows that enough people will support him, and that this support will generate enough public debate that his name will be famous, even for a short time. Thus, his objective has been achieved. The idiot has been noticed, and all the rest of the world is a little bit stupider from paying attention.

From Charlie Sheen to Corey Worthington, idiots get the limelight. Our entertainment is becoming idiotic, our advertisements are idiotic, our politicians are idiotic, and why not? As a society, this is the new “X Factor”.

Forget about a time when the guy who invented electricity was revered. Forget about a time when a woman who devoted her life to helping the poor and the sick was seen as a national treasure. Now, the true champions of our society are different. It is the young rebellious teenager who throws a house party that ends in riot police intervention. It is the retarded individual who goes on national TV with a reality show that follows their life of insanity. It is the celebrity who experiences a drug fueled meltdown and captivates an entire world while thousands are dying on the other side of it in Japan.

This publicity seeking display of idiotic behaviour has gone viral, with everybody seeking a piece of it. From YouTube “stars” to Occupy Wall Street Protesters, idiotic behaviour has never had a better audience.

Here is a hint. Maybe the real idiots are us? Maybe they are the people who watch idiotic behaviour, either condemn or condone it, but keep on coming eagerly back to see more. And like a good capitalist producer, society keeps on handing us what we crave.

Stop this. Stop paying attention to retarded anything. Don’t follow idiots, don’t talk about them with friends, don’t hang out to see what level of insanity they will reach. Ignore them. If idiots were ignored, pretty soon they will wake up and realise that nobody cares.

Resolution 4 – “I Will Think Before I Vote”

If you hear people complaining bitterly about those in power, ask them two questions.

1. “Did you vote in the last election?” If not, please don’t talk about this, you don’t have the right to have an opinion on something you decided to have no say in when you could have.

2. “Second, if you did vote, can you tell me in less than a minute why you voted the way you did”? If you can’t, again, you don’t have a right to talk here.

While the idea of democracy may be tarnished, the fact remains that people, at least in Australia, vote in and tolerate a leader. It is the people’s choice, when they go to the polling booth, to vote a certain way. Forget about those who didn’t vote, they didn’t have a say in the election of a leader, and thus don’t have a real say in criticizing the sitting government.

Selecting a leader should be a process of intelligent thought and decision. Leaders should be elected on the basis of past performance and the integrity of their current policies, rather than the will of stupid people. However, we don’t live in such a world. We live in a world where a debate between opposing political leaders, one of whom will guide the country through some of the most turbulent times in history, must be rescheduled so that people can watch a celebrity cooking show. Enough said.

I Mean More to You Than Your Political Future!

Here is a crazy idea. Maybe you should put some thought into who you vote for? I am not telling you who to vote for, or even who the best political leader is. However, your decision in this regard should be one made intelligently. Think about it…

Resolution 5 – “I Will Watch Less TV”

TV Will not make you intelligent. TV is not intelligent, and is not likely to be soon. Television is interested in ratings and getting you parked in front of it for the longest amount of time. And surprisingly, the thing which gets people parked in front of the TV the longest is also the most retarded.

What were the most popular ratings in Australia for 2011?

1. The Block – 3.4 million
2. Australia’s Got Talent – 2.98 million
3. Underbelly Razor – 2.79 million
4. Masterchef – 2.75 million
5. 2011 Melbourne Cup – 2.67 million
6. 2011 AFL Grand Final – 2.64 million
7. Two and a Half Men – 2.52 million
8. State of Origin – 2.49 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_television_ratings_for_2011

Now, I will not comment on any of the above, but I ask those who have watched them, which of these are increasing your intelligence and providing new information to improve your mind? Out of the whole list, the majority of Australians were watching reality TV shows, gameshows, sports, and badly made sitcoms.

TV is made for stupid people. Like a baby’s rattle, it is a simple combination of light and noise to steal people’s attention and prevent them crying.

The baby is the one actually learning here.

Now, I am not saying to throw away the TV, or that sitting in front of it decreases your IQ exponentially. It’s a question of what you are watching and how long you spend there. In 2012, why don’t you watching something intelligent? Maybe the news? (Remembering Resolution 1). Or the Discovery Channel? Something that will teach you something.If you watch TV, watch TV intelligently

And if you get your entertainment predominantly from the Simpsons, Jersey Shore, MTV, Two and a Half Men, or any style of retarded reality TV show, please stop reading. Sorry to say, you’re too far gone – I think that Gordon Ramsey is about to swear at some water, you had better go and watch…

Now, I apologise if I have come across as being sarcastic in my rant. But I beg of you, please think about your actions in 2012. Try and act intelligently, or failing that, please stop acting stupidly. It will make me, society and decency, and all your fellow humanity breathe easier.

That is all…..Happy New Year……oh what? New Year? Great! Ok, you get a pass for the first 6 hours of 2012, as I know you are all going to do stupid things anyway. But from January 2nd, please think about this!

Regards,

Society

A Changing World

The last 60 years of the twentieth century may very well be seen as including some of the fastest and widest reaching changes ever to occur in human history. The main driver of these changes has been the idea of Globalisation. Globalisation can be defined simply as the decrease in the political and macroeconomic barriers which prevent a free flow of ideas, products, labour, and money between countries. It is a retreat from the traditional idea of a nation state, and a progress towards a more homogenous world.

Globalisation is often cited in an economic context, and indeed, economics has been, and remains, the main driver of the global movement. In the new world of globalisation, a business has access to a far larger number of markets and supply networks. Businesses can purchase supplies, assemble a product, and resell to a market, with all three operations in different time zones. Globalisation is seen as lifting less developed nations out of poverty, as foreign direct investment lifts the national earning, and invests infrastructure, educational resources, and increased skill sets to the economy.

To support the advance of Globalisation, many governments have made extensive policy decisions, including signing free trade agreements with neighbouring allies, removing restrictive tariffs and barriers to market entry, and improving international relationships between countries to enable ease of trade.

Legal and regulatory bodies, such as the IMF, the World Bank, and others have historically supported Globalisation, and seek to establish a cross border legal and appeals system which will support the international growth of foreign investment.

While businesses, governments, and world leaders may enthusiastically support and promote Globalisation, there also exists a strong and vocal opposing force which views Globalisation as breaking down national identity and sovereignty. The critics range from the nationalistic to the xenophobic to the academic. In their view, Globalisation is a tool of corporate bodies to gain greater power over state’s interests, and that the poorer and middle classes are the real losers. At times, these opposing world views have violently clashed, such as the infamous “Battle of Seattle”, and the Melbourne riots.

It is beyond dispute that Globalisation affects all citizens of a state, and that there will be a segment of the population that will not experience a benefit from Globalisation. National interests do become supplanted by regional or global interests. This paper seeks to analyse the rise of Globalisation in the Asia Pacific region and the future direction of the region. It also seeks to identify some of the criticisms of the Global movement, as well as the definite benefits gained by Globalisation.

Finally the author makes the argument that Globalisation is both a pacifying and an inflammatory position between nations. Globalisation can be used as a weapon by an aggressive state, giving states another offensive method rather than armed conflict.

Breaking down of Trade Barriers:

 In a speech in 2008, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd stated that in our international dealings with the Asia Pacific region, “we need a strong system of global and regional relationships and institutions to underpin stability.

We also have to make sure that the open, rules-based system of global trade is maintained and expanded. It is the system that has underwritten our prosperity, just as it has underwritten the prosperity of the region”.[1]

By saying this, Mr Rudd was referring to one of the principal tenants of globalisation; lowered trade barriers between nations. Traditionally, countries have existed primarily on a protectionist basis. Protectionism is the belief that Governments should enact policies which “restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are import tariffs, quotas, subsidies or tax cuts to local businesses and direct state intervention”[2]. Protectionism is seen as a method of ensuring that local industries remain competitive by raising the barriers of entry for competing foreign firms. Examples of protectionism are seen in almost every major economy, even those which openly advocate a free trade and globalist approach. Australia engaged in protectionist policy until recently by subsidising the local automotive industry[3]. Both the United States and France engage in trade subsidies of local agricultural products to increase their competitiveness[4].

The long term effects of a protectionist policy approach are debated, however the majority view of the Globalists is that protectionism and government intervention in the market creates both inefficiencies of either an excess or shortage in the economy of the protected item. As a result of the Global Financial Crisis, protectionism gained new life, however. Governments, supported by demands of their citizens, turned to protectionism as a method of supporting threatened local industries. Economists were alarmed at this trend, citing the example of the Great Depression of the 1930s. During the Great Depression, the United Stated in particular withdrew from global trade and isolated itself behind protectionism. Many economists believe that this isolation both increased the severity and duration of the depression[5]. It is proposed that the reason the Global Financial Crisis did not become a new Great Depression was due to the concerted efforts of organisations such as the World Trade Organisation to encourage nations to uphold free trade.

Proponents of the Globalist idea point to the apparent benefits of lessening trade barriers between nations.

 The Business Argument:

From a business point of view, decreased trade barriers mean greater access to a wide variety of markets, both for supply and sale of goods. The modern business can now trade with the world, equally completing with a home grown business in another country. Profits can be increased by utilising lower cost labour or products in a foreign market, which in turn are translated into savings for the consumer.

For the consumer, it is also a benefit to have access to the world’s markets with ease. One of the accompanying drivers of globalisation, communication, enables buyers to inform themselves as to the best value of quality of product they desire.

In a global marketplace, businesses are also able to open up new income streams, including foreign currency trading, international investments, and export financing.

The Development Argument:

In a 2001 report, the International Monetary Fund stated that “contrary to popular beliefs, increased trade has strongly encouraged growth and poverty reduction and has contributed to narrowing the gaps between rich and poor worldwide.”[6].

The paper analysed 24 countries which experienced globalisation since the 1980s. This list included well known examples such as China, Thailand, Argentina, and India. The IMF paper found that out of the three groups of countries, “Rich” countries, “Nonglobalizers”, and “Globalizers”, the 24 countries which experimented with globalisation experienced far greater average GDP growth in the 1980s and 1990s than any other group[7].

This growth rate accelerated from 1.4% in the 1960s to over 5% in the 1990s. Out of the 24 countries surveyed, 18 experienced real growth in per capita GDP.

The Moral Argument:

A more simple argument has also been presented in support of a breakdown in trade barriers. This argument simply states that protectionism provides an unfair advantage to one industry over another, creating an inefficient market place. A global market place should require all participants to trade and transact on their own merits and on an equal footing[8].

The Asia Pacific region has been a classic example of the rise of cross border trade. In the 1960s to 1980s, economic growth in the Pacific Region was fuelled by a post-war Japan and the rise of the Asian Tigers, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore, who experienced gradual trade liberalisation[9]. In the 1980s, and 1990s, the economic rise of China began to dominate the Asia Pacific region, leading to what some called “open regionalism”[10]. This open regionalism gave way to a dramatic rise in Free Trade Agreements in the Asia Pacific region.

There have been calls to amalgamate these free trade agreements, of which Australia is a signatory to a number, into a giant free trade zone, covering 50% of the world’s economic output[11]. After the failure of the Doha round of trade talks, calls were made to implement this Asia Pacific Free Trade Area to both revitalize APEC and foster integration within Asia Pacific[12].

Globalisation and National Identity:

 As briefly discussed previously, globalisation definitely has its detractors. One of the major arguments against globalisation is that nations may lose their national and cultural identity and that ultimately nationalistic interests will suffer.

Critics argue that if nationalism and protectionist policies are abandoned, foreign investment in the country will supplant local business interests, with traditionally locally controlled and owned companies being controlled by international interests. This is seen as leading to a loss of jobs in the country, as businesses outsource manufacturing operations and services to a cheaper labour market. Combined with this, critics see foreign imports as being of less quality than locally produced products[13].

Opponents of Globalisation often adhere to a patriotic and nationalist view of society, opposing extensive immigration into their country, and either a “Westernisation” or “Islamisation” of their country. While Australian nationalists may condemn an decrease in “Western” culture and values in their country[14], nationalists in Malaysia or Indonesia may decry an increase in Western values and culture.

Various nations in the Asia Pacific Region have reacted to the threat to national identity by Globalisation in different ways.

Australia’s response has been to accept Globalisation and free trade eagerly in public policy. Prime Minister Rudd sought to strengthen economic and political ties with Asia, particularly with China while he was in office. This goal is being carried on by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, as evidenced by her recent statements at the G20 summit urging world leaders to embrace free trade and reject protectionism[15].

At a grassroots level of society, however, Australians have traditionally been wary of multiculturalism and Globalisation. In a 2003 survey, the Australian population was seen as being divided in response to questions such as “Should Australia increase economic ties with Asia” and “Should Australia increase cultural and political ties with Asia”. The final conclusion by the authors of the survey was “…Australians are comparatively ‘closed’ to globalisation on key subjective and objective measures, and Australian attitudes to global engagement are shaped by respondents economic security and views about the effect an open economy on jobs…Overall we find that many Australians are wary of greater economic, political, and cultural engagement.”[16]

China, on the other hand, while being the economic superpower of the Asia Pacific region, has openly stated that the first national priority is to protect national interests, economic, cultural, and political[17]. China is determined to maintain these, even at the expense of armed conflict[18].

 Case Study: ASX and the National Interest

 The previous merger bid between ASX Limited (ASX) and Singapore Exchange Limited (SGX) is a perfect example of the challenges faced by globalisation and the benefits which can be experienced from it.

In October 2010, the ASX and the SGX announced a proposed $8.4 billion merger to create the premier international exchange in Asia Pacific to “enable customers globally to capitalise on listing, trading, clearing and settlement opportunities created through the expanded platforms, leveraging on the importance of Asia Pacific as the driver of global growth”.[19]

The proposed merger would provide customers to access over 2,700 listed companies, including over 200 Chinese listings. In addition, the merger would create the world’s second largest base on institutional investors and the second largest cluster of resource companies.

The ASX enthusiastically identified a number of benefits to Australia’s national interest from this merger.

The first benefit of the merger is the establishment of Australia as a leading financial services hub in the Asia Pacific. Many Asian countries are seen as being eager for foreign investment opportunities, and Australia could be seen as an attractive destination if it invested in the necessary infrastructure and groundwork to be an attractive investment destination[20]. An increased recognition of Australia’s role in the region would assure investors that Australia was determined and interested in integrating local and Asian financial markets. The report stated that “For Australia to have any chance of becoming a regional financial services hub, we must first demonstrate commitment to the region and a genuine willingness to engage”.[21]

An enhanced role for Australia in the Asia Pacific financial markets would also improve the quality and numbers of financial services professionals in Australia’s capital cities. Rather than attracting talent from Australia, the merger would facilitate skilled professionals to build careers in Australia.

Finally, the merger would reduce the cost of attracting foreign capital. Traditionally, the Australian economy has operated at a significant and increasing current account deficit, indicating a heavy reliance on foreign investment rather than domestic savings. Australia’s largest exports, resources, agriculture, and education, are dependant on Asia, particularly China and India. This dependence is expected to rise in the future.

The merger between ASX and SGX was seen as increasing the potential pool of foreign capital which Australia requires in order to remain an economic power.

Based on the above reasons, proponents of Globalisation see the proposed merger as a win-win situation for all involved.

However, the critics of Globalisation demonstrated their traditional opposition to decreased trade barriers. Immediately after the announcement, two of Australia’s three major political parties, the Greens and the Liberal and National Coalition, hit back at the merger. Both parties refused to support or permit the merger unless it was demonstrated that it was in Australia’s national interest. Bob Brown, leader of the environmentalist and leftist leaning Greens stated that “[The deal would] shortchange Australia and leave the nation vulnerable to the loss of control of a key financial institution. Ceding control now means opening the door to future predators. Once those protections are gone, future takeover attempts are a certainty”.[22]

From the other side of the political spectrum, MP Robert Katter denounced the merger as “lunacy on a grand scale”, and stated that “I have a desire some things in my country are left owned by my country. I do not wish to live in a country of serfs working for foreign landlords”.[23]

Mr Katter’s comments are a textbook case of protectionist and anti-globalist sentiment, which has found favour with many Australians.

The ASX warns, however, that “if ASX-SGX were disallowed, this could add to perceptions, especially in Asia, that Australia is not welcoming of foreign investment and/or was overly protectionist…Disallowing ASX-SGX would send the wrong message to foreign investors – particularly as similar exchange combinations have been approved in many jurisdictions around the world.” [25]

Cross Border Security Implications:

 National aggression has traditionally been carried out through armed conflict between nations for the purpose of establishing regional dominance, acquisition of land and resources, or for ideological purposes, such as during the Cold War.

Globalisation, however, is seen by its proponents as being an instrument for global peace and prosperity. The rise of bilateral free trade agreements has been identified as a contributing factor towards promoting the lessening of armed conflicts, and empirical research by Lee and Pyun aims to refute the charge that the result of globalisation is an increase in aggression between countries[26].

Lee and Pyun in a later research article identified two ways that globalisation is promoting peace worldwide. Firstly, an aggressive trading partner may be shunned by other partners in a region, leading to economic downturn within the country, as foreign investment will be hesitant to invest in a nation engaged in aggression against another[27]. Secondly, increased information flow, international investment, and communication abilities provided by globalisation enable dissidents under an autocratic regime to successfully gain international support for their cause. The current regime challenges seen in the Middle East have been linked to a globalist movement[28], which demands greater economic development within Egypt. Globalisation seems to be accomplishing in the Middle East what Neoconservatives in the United States hoped would occur due to the United States military intervention into Iraq.

However, while trade agreements and economic interdependence between nations may lessen the occurrence of armed conflict, they have also provided aggressive nations with opportunities to manipulate trading partners to promote national interests.

An example of economic Globalisation being used for aggressive purposes can be seen in the rise of China in Africa and Asia Pacific. In order to accomplish their goals of economic expansion, Chinese intelligence and military services have become dedicated to infiltrating and targeting business competitors to Chinese interests, rather than political competitors. A recent report on Chinese investment in Africa identified The Ministry of State Security of the People’s Republic of China working in conjunction with the Economic Intelligence Unit of the Ministry of Economics to ensure the competitiveness of Chinese companies and gather intelligence on opposing companies[29].

In addition, there have been numerous alleged cases of cyber attacks on Australian businesses by China for the purpose of gaining business intelligence[30]. Globalisation may have reduced armed conflict between nations, but it has also given nations the tools to engage in greater economic aggression.

Many countries, however, are still resolved to protect national interests by any means, including armed aggression. China’s openness regarding this has prompted the Australian Defence White Paper to identify China as a possible regional threat in the future[31]. In a 2008 speech, the Director of Australia’s National Security Project stated that nationalism was possibly on the rise in the Asia Pacific. He included India and China as examples of countries willing to engage in territorial disputes[32].

Conclusion

 That Globalisation has redefined and changed the Asia Pacific region is not disputed. As the region moves into the twenty first century, it is inevitable that Globalisation will continue to remain the dominant driving force of economic development. In is the opinion of the author that Australia has much to gain from embracing Globalisation and by integrating itself into Asia Pacific.

It is also inevitable, however, that continued nationalist sympathies will continue to oppose Globalisation. Governments within the region will be forced to confront the delicate task of balancing appropriate national interests with regional and global ones. As migration and trade increases, however, the cultural and economic disparities within the region will lessen, leading to stronger links between nations in Asia Pacific.

[1] Rudd, K, “It’s Time to Build an Asia Pacific Community” Speech at the Asia Society held 04/06/08 , transcript at http://www.asiasociety.org.au/speeches/speeches_current/s55_PM_Rudd_AD2008.html

[2] Investopedia, “Protectionism Definition”, http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/protectionism.asp , accessed 15/02/11

[3] Kerr, C., 2010, “Call to Slash Auto Aid”, The Australian, 15/12/10 , http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/call-to-slash-auto-aid/story-fn59niix-1225953470158 accessed 16/02/11

[4] Griswold, D., Young, B, “Online Debate – Should the United States Cut Its Farm Subsidies?”  Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/trade/should-united-states-cut-its-farm-subsidies/p13147 , accessed 17/02/11

[5] Stoler, A., “Trade Protectionism and the WTO: A New Challenge under the Global Financial Crisis, Eigth Forum on the WTO, Shenzhen, China, 19/10/09. Presentation by the Institute for International Trade

[6] Dollar, D., Kraay, A., 2001, “Trade Growth and Poverty”, Finance and Development, IMF, September 2001, Volume 38, No 3

[7] Dollar, D., Kraay, A., 2001, “Trade Growth and Poverty”, Finance and Development, IMF, September 2001, Volume 38, No 3

[8] Ikenson, D., Lincicome, S., 2011, “Beyond Exports: A Better Case for Free Trade”, CATO Institute, Free Trade Bulletin no 43, January 31, 2011

[9] Drysdale, P., 2006, “India, East Asia, and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation”, Paper presented at ARC Asia Pacific Futures Research Network Conference 2006. www.sueztosuva.org.au/south_asia/2006/Drysdale.pdf accessed 17/02/11

[10] Garnaut, R., 2004, “A New Open Regionalism in the Asia Pacific”, Paper Presented at the International Conference on World Economy, Colima, Mexico, 25 November, 2004  http://www.rossgarnaut.com.au/Documents/A%20New%20Open%20Regionalism%20in%20the%20Asia%20Pacific%202004.pdf accessed 18/02/11

[11] Australia Network News, 2010, “Asia Pacific Plans Huge Free Trade Zone”, http://australianetworknews.com/stories/201011/3065878.htm?desktop , accessed 14/02/11

[12] Bergsten, C. F., 2006, “The Case for a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific”, Peterson Institute for International Economics, http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=687   accessed 17/02/11

[13] Worthington G., 2001, “Globalisation: Perceptions and Threats to National Government in Australia”, Research Paper, Parliamentary Library  http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01RP27.htm  accessed 18/02/11

[14] Sydney Morning Herald, 2011, “Morrison, Muslims, and Multiculturalism”, SMH February 19, 2011, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/morrison-muslims-and-multiculturalism-20110218-1azl1.html accessed 19/02/11

[15] Shanahan, D., 2010, “Resist Protectionism, Julia Gillard urges Leaders at G20 Summit in Seoul”, The Australian, November 12, 2010

[16] Wilson, S., Meagher, G., Gibson, R. Denemark, D., Western, M., 2005, Australian Social Attitudes: The First Report, UNSW Press September 2005

[17] Bezlova, A. 2009, “National Interest First – Wen Jiabao”, IPS News, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46099,  accessed 14/02/11

[18] The Times of India, 2011, “China Ready to Go to War to Safeguard National Interests”,  http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/china-ready-to-go-to-war-to-safeguard-national-interests/articleshow/7482654.cms  accessed 17/02/11

[19] ASX Joint News Release, 2010, “ASX and SGX to Combine”, 25/10/10 http://www.asxgroup.com.au/asx-sgx-merger.htm  accessed 18/02/11

[20] ASX, 2010, “ASX-SGX: Why the Combination is in Australia’s National Interest” 06/12/10, http://www.asxgroup.com.au/asx-sgx-merger.htm  accessed 18/02/11

[21] ASX, 2010, “ASX-SGX: Why the Combination is in Australia’s National Interest” 06/12/10, http://www.asxgroup.com.au/asx-sgx-merger.htm  accessed 18/02/11

[22] Steger I, 2010, “SGX-ASX Merger Still Faces a Number of Obstacles”, Wall Street Journal,  http://blogs.wsj.com/exchange/2011/02/17/sgx-asx-merger-still-faces-a-number-of-obstacles/ accessed 18/02/11

[23] Pannett R., 2010, “ASX Takeover by Singapore Rival Hits Political Hurdles”, The Australian, October 26, 2010

[24] ASX Joint News Release, 2010, “ACCC does not propose to intervene in ASX-SGX merger proposal”, 15/12/10 http://www.asxgroup.com.au/asx-sgx-merger.htm  accessed 18/02/11

[25] ASX, 2010, “ASX-SGX: Why the Combination is in Australia’s National Interest” 06/12/10, http://www.asxgroup.com.au/asx-sgx-merger.htm  accessed 18/02/11

[26] Lee J, Pyun, J., 2009, “Does Trade Integration Contribute to Peace?”, Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration No 24, January 2009, Asian Development Bank

[27] [27] Lee J, Pyun, J., 2009, “Globalisation Promotes Peace”, VOX, March 21, 2009,  http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3316 , accessed 18/02/11

[28] Steinbock, D., 2011, “Egypt After Mubarak: New Era of Modernization?” The Globalist, February 15, 2011,  http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8991 , accessed 18/02/11

[29] Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organisation, 2009, “China in Africa: A Strategic Overview”

[30] Hewett J., 2010, “Miners Fear Secrets Stolen by Chinese Cyber-Spies”, The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/miners-fear-secrets-stolen-by-chinese-cyber-spies/story-e6frg9df-1225855718533 accessed 18/02/11

[31] Australian Government, Department of Defence, 2009, “Defence White Paper 2009”,

[32] Ungerer C, 2008, “The International Drivers of Australia’s National Security”, Speech to the Security in Government Conference, Canberra, 18 September 2008

Critique of The Arms Trafficking Debate

A 2008 article in the Jakarta Post by Michael Richardson got me thinking. It proposes the accepted and popular idea that rogue arms dealers, funding war, revolution, and terrorism, are a main threat to global security.

Popularized by the rather far fetched film “Lord of War”, arms dealing has become cloaked in mystery and intrigue. In reality, arms dealing is a well established profession, carried out by many from the local gun shop, all the way to a government level. The kinds of arms dealing vilified in the public press are only a tip of the iceberg of the actual trade which goes on between countries.

In the Opinion Piece, “Inside global arms trafficking, terrorism”, Michael Richardson attempts to draw a solid link between organised crime and terrorism[1].

Richardson uses a number of examples of links between terrorist organisations and organised crime, including Hezbollah’s involvement in the lucrative narcotics smuggling routes of Turkey and Central America, and the Taliban’s funding of operations through Heroin smuggling.

The main focus of the article, however, is on the links between international arms sales and global terrorism. Richardson focuses on the larger than life Viktor Bout, arrested in 2008 on charges of attempting to supply weapons to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a leftist terrorist group operating in Colombia, and themselves funded through Cocaine trafficking and protection[2].

After September 11, and the War on Terror, arms dealers are being targeted with the charge of supporting and arming terrorist organisations. In the request by the DEA for arrest warrants for Viktor Bout, the charge brought was Bout was not for sanction busting, but in supporting terrorist organisations[3]. With the arrest of long time arms dealer, Monzer Al Kassar, in 2007, the US brought a number of federal charges against him, including supplying terrorist groups. Senator John Kerry referred to him in the senate as “a notorious terrorist[4]” .

I would argue, however, that while an indisputable link can be drawn between illegal arms deals and global terrorism, the larger issue is the arming of terrorist organisations by sovereign states. A nation may have a number of reasons to wish to arm a terrorist group. Nations can seek to destabilize a region, or weaken a rival by arming hostile forces, or can gain protection from terror attacks in return for arming and supplying the group. Examples abound of state sponsored arms deals to terrorists. Iran has consistently attempted to arm anti-Israeli forces in the Middle East, including Hezbollah in this manner[5]. And while Viktor Bout was arrested for doing business with what he thought was the FARC (actually undercover DEA and informants), his earlier dealings with the FARC were masterminded by the long term head of Peruvian Intelligence[6].

It is hard to imagine that arms dealers could easily exist, let alone do business for years, without some form of government cooperation, either through corruption of officials or a deliberate attempt to gain a covert advantage. Therefore, I do not accept that the greatest asset to terrorism is organised crime or illegal arms trades. The greatest asset is a sponsoring state which has access to far greater resources than an individual weapons dealer, including strategic weapons such as nuclear, chemical, and biological, which a terrorist may be unable to obtain without state support. To fully prevent the arming of terrorist groups, authorities must be willing and able to bring nations to account which engage in these activities.

This critique is going to be the start of a new series published on this blog focusing on international arms dealing, the reality of the trade, and the inherent dangers which go with it.

---

[1] Richardson, M., “Inside Global Arms Trafficking, Terrorism”, The Jakarta Post, 14/03/2008

[2] Economist, “Victor Bout: Man in the Dock”, 30/09/10 , http://www.economist.com/node/17155738 accessed 17/03/11

[3] DEA Sealed Complaint, 27/02/08 by Agent Robert Zachariasiewicz against Defendants Viktor Bout and Andrew Smulian, Justice Department, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/March/bout-complaint.pdf  accessed 17/03/11

[4] Roston, A., 2006, “Meet the ‘Prince of Marbella’ – is he really supporting Iraq’s insurgency?” The Guardian, 01/10/06

[5] Warrick, J., 2009, “Analysis: Arms smuggling heightens Iran fears”, Ya Libnan News, 03/12/09,  http://www.yalibnan.com/2009/12/03/analysis-arms-smuggling-heightens-iran-fears/ accessed 17/03/11

[6] Vranckx, A., 2009, “Arms Brokering in the Americas”, UN Disarmament Forum, http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2889.pdf , accessed 17/03/11

Responsibility to Protect Part II

Following on from our previous post, please find the second part of “Responsibility to Protect”

One of the major fears by states is that R2P can cause an attack on their sovereignty, as it implicitly upholds the view that human rights supersede sovereignty. In a summary issued by the ICISS, Algeria, Belarus, China, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and Vietnam have openly rejected R2P, based on a number of reasons. For countries such as Russia, Venezuela, China, and Vietnam, rejection of this concept has a possibly political basis. China and Russia, in particular, as members of the Security council hold veto over interventions, and have used this often in the past, including in the cases of Kosovo and Syria. For countries such as Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, and Syria, rejection of R2P can be potentially due to a fear that human rights abuses in their own countries would possibly lead to an intervention under R2P.

Overall, the general consensus for rejection by these countries is the perceived lessening of state sovereignty. The supremacy of sovereignty has been upheld by researchers such as Jonathan Charney, who writes that “The protection of human rights is also among the primary purposes of the Charter but is subsidiary to the objective of limiting war and the use of force in international relations, as found in the express Charter prohibitions on the use of force”. Others have been blunter in their condemnation of NATO, and particularly the US, mission to Kosovo “Citing the need to preserve stability in Europe and to protect the Kosovar Albanians against Serbian ethno-fascism, NATO—led by Washington—initiated an offensive operation against a sovereign European state. It is the latest and most aggressive of the U.S.-led “humanitarian interventions” of the post-cold war period”.

Is Sovereignty really under attack though? Pattison’s view is that the new concept of R2P moves the view of sovereignty from control of a state over its citizens to a responsibility by the state to protect their interests. He goes on to say that the R2P now can not only justify and condone intervention to prevent human rights abuses, but also carries a potential moral obligation to intervene.

In comparing traditional sovereignty compared to the Responsibility to Protect, it may be helpful to consider the concept of the Social Contract proposed by Hobbs hundreds of years ago. Too often it is convenient for states to forget that they also are required to uphold their part of the social contract – that is to provide security and safety to their citizens. Hobbs believed that security was the most important aspect of life, and one which held priority over all other values. In this view, a sovereign power was the most likely to provide this security. Thus, a collective group of people will surrender a portion of their own liberty for security from a state. The state will then rule with legitimate power if it fulfils its side of the contract. This argument which was implied by Hobbs is also echoed in the UN R2P – that sovereignty is more than just the right of a state to carry on internal affairs without external hindrance. It states that every state has the responsibility to provide the security described by Hobbs to its citizens, therefore preventing the use of violence or human rights violations by the state

It has been argued that the outcry against R2P based on a sovereignty argument is little more than tilting at a straw man. While the Peace of Westphalia did develop the concept of the absolute sovereignty of a state, this concept was refined following the First and Second World Wars. As far back as 1864, the First Geneva Convention stated that a state had the obligation to protect citizens in occupied territories . This concept has been affirmed in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter which guarantees that the UN will not intervene in domestic matters of a state. However, Article 2(7) is preferenced by the statement that the Article will not prejudice action by the UN under Chapter VII to respond to aggression.
There was a shift in thinking from the end of the Second World War onwards that a global responsibility to prevent human rights abuses existed. There was little international condemnation of UN approved missions such as Somalia (even though this mission ended in failure). Even the Kosovo conflict, while it led to a denunciation by Russia and China, was seen to be “illegal but legitimate”. For this conflict, the prevailing moral obligation to prevent genocide was seen to trump the UN Security Council Resolution. There is little support for unlimited sovereignty from any quarter today. The ICSS report stated that

“The defence of state sovereignty, by even its strongest supporters, does not include any claim of the unlimited power of a state to do what it wants to its own people. The Commission heard no such claim at any stage during our worldwide consultations”.

Given such a global shift in the view of the importance of human rights, and the concept of the responsibility for human rights, I would argue that the implementation of R2P is another step in the ever evolving nature of international law. The argument that sovereignty is absolute is outdated, and not applicable to the changing nature of the international scene. Like any legal concept, international law has changed significantly over the hundreds of years since it was first approached. An example of such change was seen in the response to the NATO involvement in Kosovo, which concluded that the intervention was seen as following the occasional legitimate departure from existing law as a means of effecting necessary change to it

.Therefore, while I would agree that on the surface, there is an apparent erosion of sovereignty caused by the concept of a Responsibility to Protect. However, if the actual meaning and legitimacy behind sovereignty is analysed, taking into account modern and pervasive views towards it, then R2P, rather than reducing the importance of international sovereignty, rather further defines what it is, and what responsibilities are required under it. Since 2005, there have been a number of proposed or actual humanitarian interventions carried out under the auspices of R2P. Through these, there can be seen the clarification and growth of an understanding regarding the appropriate situation where R2P can justify an intervention.
In writing regarding Libya, Pattison considers the ICSS test regarding the significance of human rights abuses. In this test, the UN would consider intervention only in cases where there are extensive abuses. The test considers “large-scale loss of life,” with or without genocidal intent, which is the product of deliberate action or neglect, or “large-scale ethnic cleansing,” whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, or acts of terror or rape.”

Gaddafi’s speech calling upon the Libyan people to hunt down the purge the “rats” in Benghazi, and promising no mercy, concerned the international body, as it was apparent, combined with the regime’s previous activities, that these above tests could be met in Libya.
However, Pattison also believes that regime change is a radically different concept from intervention. The bar, he believes, should be far higher for regime change than for intervention, based upon the outbreaks of violence and surrounding instability in the area which occurs in the event of a regime collapse. The abuses in Libya may not have warranted a regime change, based upon this theory.

Based on the Libyan situation considered, there is still a significant distance before a workable international response to human rights abuses exists. The question of sovereignty is still one which is considered by states and some theorists. I would argue however, based on the analysis above, that this view of sovereignty is one which is outdated and effectively rejected internationally. In the modern interconnected world, states have come to realise that sovereignty comes with a responsibility to maintain the security and order of their internal population. I would like to think that Hobbs would agree to this view. Finally, moving forward, a greater commitment must be undertaken by the member states of the UN to support valid and legitimate humanitarian interventions. The approval process, and the process of establishing the existence of abuses has been improved by R2P, but more work remains to be done in this regard.

References:

Annan, K, 2000, “Millennium Report of 2000 : We the Peoples”, The United Nations
Barry T, Honey, M, 1999, “Bombs Away: A Call for the Unconditional Ending of the Bombing Campaign”, Foreign Policy in Focus, Volume 4, Number 13 May 1999
Bellamy, A, 2009, “Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq”, Ethics and International Affairs, Vol 19, no 2 September 2009
Buergenthal T, 2006, “The Evolving International Human Rights System”, American Journal of International Law 100 A.J.I.L. 783 Charney J, 1999, “Anticipatory Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo”, American Journal of International Law 93 A.J.I.L. 834, *834
Clover C, 2011, “Russia sparks outrage over Syria veto at UN”, Financial Times, Oct 5 2011, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f488b00-ef71-11e0-941e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ezP8HAMK accessed 28/11/11
Devort T, 1998, “International Law and Organisation”, Sage Publications Thousand Oaks CA p 13
Evans G, Sahnoun M, 2003, “The Policy Challenge”, The United Nations
Gierycz, D, 2010, “From Humanitarian Intervention (HI) to Responsibility to Protect (R2P)”, Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol 29, No 2, August 2010
Haines, S, 1999, “The influence of Operation Allied Force on the development of the jus ad bellum” International Affairs, no 85, 2009
ICISS Responsibility to Protect “State-by-State Positions on the Responsibility to Protect”, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/Chart_R2P_11August.pdf accessed 24/11/11 ICISS, 2001, “Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty”, Responsibility to Protect
Marks E, 2000, “From Post-Cold War to Post-Westphalia”, American Diplomacy Volume V, Number 1, 2000
Menon, R, 2009, “Pious Words, Puny Deeds: The “International Community” and Mass Atrocities”, Ethics & International Affairs Journal Volume: 23, Issue: 3 (Fall 2009)
Oudraat C, 2000, “Intervention in Internal Conflicts: Legal and Political Conundrums”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace”, Number 15, August 2000
Pattison J, 2008, “Whose Responsibility to Protect? The Duties of Humanitarian Intervention”, Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 7, No. 4, 262ı283, 2008
Pattison J, 2011, “The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention in Libya”, Ethics & International Affairs 2011 p 1-7 Sassen, S, 1996, “Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalisation”, New York, Colombia University Press
Schmitt, M, 2003, “International Law and the Use of Force: The Jus Ad Bellum”, Quarterly Journal, Vol II, No 3 Sep 03
Traub, J, 2009, “The Perversion of Sovereignty”, World Affairs Journal, Winter 2009,
UN General Assembly, 2005, “2005 World Summit Outcome”, Sixtieth Session United Nations, “Charter of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice” California, 1945
Waxman M, 2009, “Intervention to Stop Genocide and Mass Atrocities”, Council on Foreign Relations, Council Special Report n 49 2009

Responsibility to Protect Part 1

The past thirty years have seen a growing rise of support by nations, individuals, world leaders, and nongovernmental organisations for campaigns to end human rights abuses and genocide. These same years have seen some of the worst examples in modern time of the violation of basic human rights of safety and security. While genocide has existed from the beginning of recorded history, from the times of the Pharaohs until now, only recently has a coordinated international effort sought to stand against it.

However, many times there is an apparent conflict between international law, which enshrines national sovereignty and which is supported by the United Nations in its Charter, and between efforts made by nations to prevent or cease violations of human rights. Classical state theory rejects the notion that another nation can intervene militarily in another’s affairs, however this intervention is often the driving force which forces a nation to cease human rights violations.

This report seeks to examine the traditional theories of statehood, including the doctrine of sovereignty, and also the recent developments in the theory of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as accepted by the United Nations. The essay will examine conflicts and discrepancies between these two theories. It argues finally that rather than a threat to sovereignty, R2P actually provides a clarification of the theory, and brings it forward into the twenty first century.

To understand the foundation of the modern international system, one must understand the concept of the nation state. Arising from the Reformation was the concept of a state existing with sovereign power to regulate its internal affairs and to conduct itself as a separate entity under law1. This replaced the idea of sovereignty by religion, or a religious figure. With the traditional power structures weakened by the Reformation, Europe fell into a period of conflict and revolution. However, out of this period came the first development of a new theory of the state. Championed by Bodin and others, the new theorists envisioned the concept of a state in which sovereignty lay with the ruler of a country, which was bound only by a form of constitutional law. The Treaty of Westphalia, concluding the 30 Years War in Europe established this concept of a sovereign nation.

After the First World War, there was a great desire to ensure that the Great War did not occur at any time in the future. Along with the ill fated League of Nations, 63 nations signed what is known as the Kellogg Briand Pact, or the Pact of Paris. This Pact renounced war as an instrument of affecting national policy. Under the act, national sovereignty was assured, and this sovereignty was not to be removed through armed conflict.

The Pact of Paris, although clearly trounced during the Second World War, became the major cornerstone behind the United Nations General Charter Article 2(4). The UN Charter has become a summary of the current state of international law, and is relied upon in all matters of conflict and conflict resolution by member states. Article 2(4) states that:

“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”

While the concept of the prohibition of aggressive military action against another state had existed in International Law before Article 2(4), the UN Charter effectively outlawed aggressive war unilaterally. Even non-members of the UN were to be held to this standard under Article 2.6. The only exception to the prohibition of armed conflict was in the case of defence against aggression.

This gives rise to the question of intervention to protect a population from breaches of human rights by a sovereign nation. Under Article 2(4), direct military action is prohibited against a rogue state which is breaching humanitarian law and is engaging in genocide or similar actions. The UN Security Council and the General Assembly have the right to undertake enforcement action against the state, including economic sanctions, denouncement, or other political pressures; however a military force was seen as being in breach of the UN Charter if carried out by a single nation6. The UN Security Council, however, could authorize a collective action to respond militarily to human rights violations.

While humanitarian intervention during the 1990s achieved some notable successes, such as the mission to East Timor, the decade is defined further by the more notable failures. These include the mission to Somalia and to Bosnia, both of which failed to prevent genocide and human rights abuses.
However, the defining moment of the decade was the failure of the UN or the International community to respond to the Rwandan massacre in 1994. After suffering setbacks in Somalia, the United States was hesitant to commit to another African intervention, while the European powers refused to act to prevent human rights violations in the country.

The sheer magnitude of the genocide, combined with international condemnation of the UN and associated members of the Security Council, led to a popular support for Humanitarian interventions to prevent cases of such extreme violation of human rights. In Kosovo in 1999, NATO committed to an air campaign against the government of Slobodan Milosevic, which was carrying out genocide and human rights abuses against the Albanian minority in Kosovo. While this campaign is credited with preventing the continuation of genocide, it was at first primarily overturned by Russia and China, who held veto in the UN Security Council. Under the UN Charter, therefore, NATO would breach international norms by engaging in military action against Kosovo without the approval of the UN Security Council.

At the end of the 1990s, the UN faced a dilemma in that it was realising that it had failed primarily in its attempt to protect international human rights. The Security Council, which was the only legitimate body which could authorise military intervention, could be forced into inaction by a veto by even a minority, who had traditionally vetoed actions based on political reasons.

UN Secretary Kofi Annan expressed his frustration regarding the UN’s inability to act when he stated that “If humanitarian intervention is indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica—to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity”. Gierycz describes the dichotomy facing the United Nations, as a case where traditional humanitarian intervention, particularly through military force was no longer acceptable to the majority of the member nations. However, there was also an increasing determination by the member states to confront human rights abuses when they occur.

After Kosovo, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, ICISS, was formed to investigate the links between state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. Their comprehensive report, delivered in September 2001, develops the concept of the “responsibility to protect”. The ICISS committee, while recognising the importance of state sovereignty, held that sovereignty did not only apply to respecting the territorial sovereignty of other nations, but also required a state to respect the basic sovereign human rights of their own citizens. The concept of Responsibility to Protect was set out as a responsibility on the United Nations to prevent human rights violations. The committee accepted that the international arena had changed significantly since the foundation of the United Nations in 1945, and thus an adjustment to the UN response to genocide was required to meet this new global environment. Failing all measures to prevent a state from carrying out large scale human rights abuses peacefully, which was a key part of the Responsibility to Protect report, the UN may appeal to the Security Council which would decide an intervention on a case by case basis under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

However, the real power behind the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine is in its explicit elevation of human rights above that of international sovereignty, which was traditionally seen as being paramount. In the ICISS report, it states that

Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect

The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect was upheld and ratified by the United Nations in 2005. In the World Summit Resolution 60, the following points were stated in the “Protection Clause”.

Article 138: The UN acknowledged the responsibility of every nation to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The International Community is dedicated to assisting developing nations in achieving this outcome.

Article 139: The UN committed itself to first attempting peaceful means to prevent human rights violations, and then to collective action through the Security Council in case of the failure of non military options.

The response to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been mixed. Criticisms of the R2P concept have mainly focused around its continued requirement whereby all military action must be approved by the Security Council. This approval has been denied in the past due to political reasons, and there is little indication that this practice will not continue into the future. Also, in the case of either a permanent or temporary member of the Security Council conducting human rights abuses, it is unlikely also that an approval of forceful action will be given. Menon states that “In attempting to put forward a plan of universal assent and legitimacy, R2P solves the problem of self-appointed intervention only to encounter another, one that can render it inoperable: the Security Council veto”. A CFR report refers to such a situation as “watering down” the original intent of R2P. Cases such as Darfur are seen to continue based on this approval requirement.

Occupy Wall Street – Flee Personal Responsibility

A little known, but growing social movement is starting to emerge in many of the financial centers of America, known as “Occupy Wall Street”. This movement, seemingly without purpose, leadership, or goal is a gathering of larger and larger groups of people who are protesting…..what exactly? Currently, the swelling number of people are camping in open spaces, marching in the streets, and generally attempting to disrupt the ordinary course of business in Wall Street and other financial districts. Their general grievances seem to revolve around the following issues:

1. A belief that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was caused entirely by Wall Street bankers and brokers who then passed on the hurt entirely to the general public while they were “bailed out”.

2. Anger over seemingly excessive corporate salaries and payouts

3. Belief that there is an unequal distribution of wealth

4. Anger at the Government’s actions in response to the GFC

This anger over the distribution of wealth has lead to the “99%” viral meme on the internet, where “working middle class – Joe the Plumber” types stand up holding crudely drawn tales of how terrible their life is and how it is most definitely not their fault but somebody elses.

In a recent interview with Al Jazeera (ever sympathetic to anything Anti business or Anti America), a variety of activist types were asked about Occupy Wall Street.

it’s pretty broad and there haven’t been any explicitly stated demands, although implicitly, by being on Wall Street and by taking over the space and all the actions that have been coming out of it, it’s people who are angry about the way that corporations and politics and money controls their lives – Elliot Tarver

Obviously, as nothing gets your point across like loitering and being a public nuisance. If 2 unwashed bums sit in the street and block traffic they are a public nuisance. But if 200 unwashed bums sit in the street and block an entire intersection while carrying signs and yelling slogans, that is supposed to be a way of “expressing their anger”? No, sorry…that’s just a bigger nuisance.

It’s an expression of frustration at the feeling that the political process is being run by economic interests and by giant corporations in particular. – Malcolm Sacks

Malcolm is a “professional activist” (read ‘being a professional nuisance’). Seriously though, what exactly do these people want to run politics? Politics has been run by economic interests ever since the Greek City States, and the drivers of the economy are major corporations. Apologies to the activist community, but the economy does not run on tie died shirts, hemp, and inter cultural dialogue. It runs on cold, hard cash. And the major generators of this are large corporations who have the economies of scale on their side.

We have these elites in our society that really make us question whether we do indeed live in a democracy, or do we really live in a plutocracy – a country controlled by elites? Mohammed Malik

Strange that Mr Malik is still asking this question. Proper democracy is the intelligent discussion and debate and participation in the political process by the general public. Note the words “intelligent participation” – something which the general public is becoming increasingly incapable of.

I think that the labour unions and other groups geared towards advancing the needs of the voiceless, the impoverished, etc.

Wow! Labour unions supporting an effort to attack the rich and pass blame for everybody’s personal difficulties to somebody else? Who would have thought! And in New York? Don’t forget, these are the same Labour Unions in New York which are busy enforcing for the Mob and standing over business owners as fast as possible.

You can’t really tell what direction this thing is trying to move in, it’s just seeking to exist.

Whatever way this movement is going in – it’s going to be ridiculous

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/10/201110322544595588.html

Personal Responsibility

Ok, I realise that there will be many people who will disagree with my stance on this topic, and that’s perfectly fine! My goal is not to defend Wall Street (who was complicit in the GFC, and should be held to account for their actions). It is not to say that Big Business is a morally correct idealized structure.

My point is that it is very easy for the “middle class” to play the victim here. Keep in mind, nobody was complaining during the early 2000s when the “Middle Class” were leveraging their houses to the hilt with second and third mortgages so they could buy another house, a big TV system, an SUV, a holiday to Disneyland, or other unnecessary items. When people were making money, Wall Street was the hero. They were the Knights in Shining Armour who were leading investors from strength to strength. Remember, nobody forced anybody to invest in the housing market. Nobody forced investors who couldn’t afford a house to buy one on 90% debt. Nobody held a gun to Billy Bob and told him to buy a car on his credit card. And while we are at it, nobody forced him to get 3 extra credit cards to cover the payments on his brand new SUV.

The Middle Class were the architects of their own destruction. It was not Wall Street that blew them up, Wall Street only sold them the dynamite on credit.

What the Middle Class do not realise is that nobody is responsible for their actions but them. It is very easy to find sob stories of people who are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and are being turfed out of their house as they cannot pay their bills. But where is the responsibility in this? Who in reality got into debt? Who gave up future benefit for current pleasure?

The story of the grasshopper and the ant comes into mind here – a sensible individual will look ahead and save for another day. He will not spend beyond his means. He will not get into crippling debt without a way out if he cannot afford it. And he will realise that he himself is the controller of his future. Not Wall Street. Not the Government. Not the guy next to him who earns more than he does.

And you know what? Such a process may be painful. Such a process may hurt. And it may require a very dirty word known as s-a-c-r-i-f-i-c-e. Sacrifice today to live better tomorrow. It is easy to attack the rich, and some of them deserve it. However, what is not known is that many of the rich got there through hard work. Rather than go for easy money when they left school, they sacrificed to continue to study and improve their mind. Instead of spending a weekend in a drunken haze, they studied and prepared themselves for something greater. They worked hard, sacrificed, and now are earning the rewards of their sacrifice. This is not to say that nepotism and elitism does not exist. But the average successful person will have a number of attributes that are lacking in most of the “middle class”.

These include ambition, sacrifice, hard work, and thinking about the future instead of the present.

Such sacrifice is rarely seen by the so called “99%”, who mainly follow the same strategy of graduating from school or university and then expecting the world to accommodate them. They marry soon out of university and have kids without a thought as to if they can care for them. They get into debt to buy a house and all the trappings, as that is what “middle class” people do isn’t it? This debt increases, and they work harder to try and pay it off, only to incur more. Somebody mentions “investing” to them, so off they run with no knowledge to trade in houses, shares, or Amway. When the collapse comes, who is to blame? Their shortsighted actions which in reality contributed to the crash? Or some far away banker in Wall Street who most probably is snorting cocaine off a $50,000 desk (don’t they all?)

The following photos show a selection of these people and are part of the “Occupy Wall Street” viral media. I may seem harsh on these people, but I want to drive home my belief that personal responsibility trumps all other reasons for why something bad has happened to you.

We don't recall the low interest that caused this gentleman to buy this house in the first place do we?

Guess what? That was most Graduates in 2009!

I fail to see why this is Wall Street's Fault?

Wow! You Didn’t Get Free University? What a Shame! Definitely March on Wall Street Right Now!

I am actually concerned for this man. He is obviously so much in debt that he cannot afford a shirt for this photo, but must stay behind a baking tray. He is obviously concerned about "Genecide" and "Prohibition" however.

Again, you may think I am heartless. I am not. I feel sorry for people in financial straits, and there are many. However, my issue is with the blame. It is not Wall Street’s Fault that you have no savings. It is not Wall Street’s Fault that you had to pay to go to University. It is not Wall Street’s fault that you have to work hard. It is not Wall Street’s fault that your credit cards are maxed out. It is always easier to point a finger of blame to somebody else than analyze the real reason you are in such a situation.

So my final words are:

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN LIFE! ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS! STOP BLAMING EVERYBODY ELSE FOR YOUR SITUATION!

Security Threats to Australia

Modern day Australia faces an ever increasing number of security threats, both internally and externally. Once seen as a relatively benign and uncontroversial country, Australia has been forced into the international stage as a dominant power in the South East Asian theatre. However, with increasing world prominence comes an increased threat to Australia. Organised criminal syndicates are identifying Australia as a relatively soft target for operations, asylum seekers continue to enter the country; a small minority with hostile intent, and increased trade and travel with Australia brings the threat of a global pandemic entering the country. Hostile actions from other nations in the form of cyber attacks and political and industrial espionage continue to pose an increasing risk to Australia. Terrorism has also threatened Australia and Australian interests, with a number of attacks prevented in Australia already.

In short, Australia must recognise that these threats exist, and build the resources to respond effectively if it hopes to ensure the continuing safety of the Australian people.

This paper seeks to identify what the author believes are the three greatest security threats facing Australia, each with increasingly elevated levels of concern.

Threat of Organised Crime:

 According to the 2009 Organised Crime Report issued by the Australian Crime Commission, the conservative impact on the Australian economy of organised crime was around $10 billion in 2008[1]. This figure includes costs such as the cost of policing such activity, loss of business to legitimate firms, and loss of tax revenue through black market dealing which is passed onto the result of the taxable population. Not included in the financial cost are the associated social issues which accompany organised crime, including increasing violence in communities, increasing presence of illegal narcotics, and associated lower level criminal activities such as theft.

Organised crime in Australia is dominated primarily by illicit narcotic smuggling and production. The 2009 UN World Drug report identified Australia as one of the largest drug markets in South East Asia, due to increasing demand and porous borders[2]. New Mexican gangs are also increasing cocaine smuggling to Australia[3], while increasing amounts of synthetic drugs are entering Australia from Asia. Australia has been identified as having the largest single number of methamphetamine labs in the world, with Asian organised crime groups and outlaw biker gangs providing protection, and in some cases, running the illegal labs[4]. Australia has been identified as number two out of the top 6 exporters of ecstasy and meth worldwide[5].

A second increasing trend in organised crime is the use of money laundering networks in Australia by organised criminals and terrorist / separatist groups. It is estimated that over $6 billion is laundered yearly through Australia[6]. Money laundering is the process of disguising either the source or destination of money by moving it through the financial system. Using this, terrorists may covertly fund an attack without raising suspicion, or organised crime gangs may turn their ill gotten gains into apparent legitimate income. The ACC report stated that “the ability to effectively and discretely launder money is a key capability for criminal networks[7]”.

Current Major Organised Crime Routes Worldwide

 

Other forms of organised crime in Australia include corporate fraud or industrial espionage. As we will discuss later, Australian business have experienced repeated attempts by both criminal organisations and foreign operatives to breach their security and access sensitive information. Other crime may also include firearms and weapons trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, identify fraud, and environmental crime.

The effect of organised crime on Australia’s security is increasing rapidly, as a greater number of players seek to enter what is fast becoming a very lucrative market. By allowing organised crime to gain a foothold in Australia, the country risks becoming known as an easier target, attracting a greater number of criminal elements. Harsher penalties in neighbouring countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand, for narcotics smuggling has possibly driven a larger percentage of this trade to Australia, where the consequences are not as severe.

Any country experiencing an increase in criminal elements will also experience a greater increase in corruption of public officials, leading to a tainted form of government[8]. Legitimate businesses in the community may be either forced to leave, or may be squeezed out by more competitive front businesses run by criminal syndicates which exist only for the purpose of laundering dirty cash. The result of this is an unstable society, with foreign investment and business seeing the country as a risky investment destination due to fears of an undesirable element in any business transaction entered into.

Also, wherever organised crime thrives, terrorism also finds a foothold. Examples of such a symbiotic relationship between crime and terror are seen worldwide, and can be seen in the Mexican drug routes used by Hezbollah to ship weapons and cash[9], the arms markets of Peshawar which supply groups such as the Taliban, the link between illegal heroin trafficking and the Taliban, and the presence of both organised crime and terror networks in the Tri-Border regions of South America[10]. Terrorists will often offer protection and support to organised criminal elements, in return for funding and access to the syndicate’s resources. A classic example is the FARC and its long term relationship as the muscle of the Colombian drug cartels[11].

Australia, in order to prevent terrorism from profiting from organised crime internally, will be forced to aggressively target organised crime elements by shutting down their distribution networks, leadership bodies, and their international supply lines.

As grave as the threat of organised crime is to Australia’s security, however, the author sees it as the least critical of the three threats described here. This is due to the fact that organised crime has been active in Australia for the past 30 years or more, with the single purpose of making profit. Other threats to Australia directly target the lives of innocent civilians, or the economic stability of large Australian corporate bodies.

Industrial and Economic Espionage:

 The second greatest threat identified by the author is that of industrial and political espionage carried out by other neighbouring nations.

The People’s Republic of China, in particular, has aggressively attempted to conduct covert eavesdropping and intelligence activities against Australian interests. Examples include the recent cyber attacks against Australian based companies such as Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, and Fortescue Metals during the attempted merger of Rio Tinto with Chinalco[12]. The Chinese Economic Ministry is committed to obtaining market intelligence worldwide, and does so through use of its internal intelligence unit, staffed primarily by former or current members of the People’s Liberation Army and the Ministry of State Security[13]. Through trade delegations, internal plants at industrial targets, wiretapping, and cyber attacks, the Chinese have attempted to gain access to sensitive design or financial data of companies based in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia[14].

In addition to the industrial espionage carried out against Australia, the Ministry of State Security is alleged to have up to a thousand intelligence agents planted in Australia, feeding back information on Chinese dissident groups, Australian political movements, and other areas of interest to the Chinese government[15]. During the visit of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to China in 2008, the Ministry of State Security is alleged to have actively attempted to bug his phone and laptop computer in order to obtain classified information about Australia[16].

This coordinated intelligence campaign against Australia has grave implications to Australia’s security, with the Defence White Paper issued in 2009 identifying China as a serious challenge to Australia[17]. By potentially gaining access to sensitive data, China will be exploit Australian security vulnerabilities to impose its influence over Southeast Asia.

As one alleged Chinese spy who defected to Australia stated “In Australia there are actually no secrets at all, including military or technology secrets. These days if there is any new technology here, it is very easy for China to get it[18]”.

The necessity for any state is to deny a hostile power the access to its sensitive information. Otherwise, the outside power may be able to effective develop countermeasures to advances to technological or military equipment developed, providing it with the upper hand in any conflict. By disrupting business processes through cyber attack, China seeks to gain an advantage for nationalised companies over local competitors such as Rio Tinto or BHPB.

This threat is seen as more severe, as the consequences of an inability to effective protect political, technological, military, or industrial secrets may lead to China effectively asserting its influence over Australian business or policy decisions, thereby weakening the security of the nation.

 

Home Grown and Imported Terrorism:

So far in Australia, there have been few successful terror attacks within the country’s borders. However, despite this, Australian security forces have foiled a number of plots which were close to fruition. An example is the Abdul Nacer Benbrika plot, which involved jihadists from Melbourne and Sydney, and sought to target soft targets in Melbourne such as an AFL game or Melbourne’s transit system in order to maximise causalities in a bombing[19].

Abdul Nacer Benbrika

Even though Australian security was able to prevent this attack and others like it, they were unprepared for the 2002 Bali bombing which seemed specifically targeted at Australian tourists.

Australia must realise that it is an attractive target for terrorists, due to its close relationship with the United States. Combined with a police and intelligence force which do not have the same experience in dealing with terror attacks that their UK or US counterparts have, it is very likely that this will result in another attempted attack upon Australia. There has been a large migration of asylum seekers into Australia over the past decade from countries which have experienced internal conflict with extremist elements. Organisations such as Al Qaeda are very likely to use this opportunity to plant operational cells within Australia by smuggling operatives into the country posing as asylum seekers[20].

If placed in detention, these operatives can serve a further purpose by manipulating dissatisfied refugees into accepting extremist thought. Upon release into the community, these covert operatives will further attempt to gain support from migrant communities, which are traditionally shut to police and intelligence agencies. Indeed, the leader of the thwarted terror plot, Benbrika, sought asylum in Australia, claiming that he faced persecution in his home country of Algeria[21]. Once arriving in Australia, he continued to promote jihadist teaching in mosques in both North Melbourne and Sydney.

Due to the ongoing War on Terror, groups such as Al Qaeda have been denied any country as a safe haven, and thus the international terror organisation has gone underground, seeking to recruit home-grown jihadists to carry on their war[22]. Leaders such as Benbrika, and veterans of the fight against first the Soviets and then the Coalition in Afghanistan and Iraq are sought to provide the ideology, planning, and training necessary for the recruited local cells to be effective. It is naïve to believe that Al Qaeda is not planning further attacks upon Australia, and that future local cells are plotting their attacks upon civilian targets in Australia.

Thus, I would argue that this is the greatest security threat facing Australia right now. To successfully prevent any future terrorist actions, Australian security forces must seek to penetrate more effectively the Australian Islamic communities, where the radical recruitment occurs. By targeting recruitment into the intelligence and policing agencies to individuals in these communities, Australia will gain a valuable source of information which may be used effectively to prevent future attacks.

In conclusion, we have identified three threats facing Australia, including organised crime, espionage by foreign powers, and home-grown terrorist acts. Only by identifying these threats, and acknowledging the seriousness of their presence will Australia be able to maintain their current security. There is a need for greater cooperation between state and federal police services, legislative bodies, intelligence agencies, the local community, and migrant populations to identify individuals and organisations engaged in activities which will threaten Australian interests.

---

[1] Australian Crime Commission, 2009, “Organised Crime Report 2009”, http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/index.htm accessed 09/04/11

[2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2009, “World Drug Report 2009”

[3] McKenzie, N, Welch D., 2010, “Mexican Most Wanted Man Taking Over Cocaine Trade“, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept 15, 2010, http://www.smh.com.au/national/mexicos-most-wanted-man-taking-over-cocaine-trade-20100914-15azd.html  accessed 10/04/11

[4] Davies, A., 2009, “Australia Top in Asia Drug Market”, The Age, June 26, 2009, http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-top-in-asia-drug-market-20090625-cy8n.html accessed 09/04/11

[8] European Commission Centre for the Study of Democracy, 2010, “Examining the Links between Organised Crime and Corruption”

[9] Washington Times Exclusive, 2009, “Hezbollah uses Mexican Drug Routes into the US”, Washington Times, March 27, 2009, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/hezbollah-uses-mexican-drug-routes-into-us/  accessed 10/04/11

[10] Hudson, R., 2003, “Terrorist and Organised Crime Groups in the Tri-Border Area of South America”, Library of Congress 2003,  http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/TerrOrgCrime_TBA.pdf  accessed 10/04/11

[11] Hanson, S., 2009, “FARC, ELN: Colombia’s Left Wing Guerrillas”, Council on Foreign Relations,  http://www.cfr.org/colombia/farc-eln-colombias-left-wing-guerrillas/p9272  accessed 10/04/11

[12] SMH, 2010, “Mining Firms Hit by China Cyber Attacks”, Sydney Morning Herald April 19, 2010, http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/mining-firms-hit-by-china-cyber-attacks-20100419-spc9.html  accessed 10/04/11

[13] Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organisation, 2009, “China in Africa: A Strategic Overview”

[14] Rogin, J., 2010, “China’s Expansion of Economic Espionage Boils Over”, Foreign Policy , http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/13/china_s_expansion_of_economic_espionage_boils_over  accessed 10/04/11

[15] Bullivant, R., 2005, “Chinese Defectors Reveal Chinese Strategy and Agents in Australia”, National Observer No 66 Spring 2005.

[16] Kwok, V., 2009, “Chinese ‘Spying’ Rattles Australia”, Forbes 04/03/2009

[17] Garnaut, J., Nicholson, B., 2009, “Defence Plan Ruffles the Chinese”, Sydney Morning Herald, 01/05/2009

[18] Sydney Morning Herald, 2009, “Chinese Whispers”, 04/04/09, http://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-whispers-20090403-9qil.html accessed 10/04/11

[19] Hughes, G., 2008, “Terror Group Plot to Hit MCG”, The Australian, April 16, 2008,  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/terror-group-plot-to-hit-mcg/story-e6frg6of-1111116073582  accessed 10/04/11

[20] Fitzpatrick, S., 2010, “Asylum-seeker Linked to al-Qa’ida” The Australian, July 14, 2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/asylum-seeker-linked-to-al-qaida/story-e6frg6nf-1225891385695  accessed 10/04/11

[21] Stanley, T., 2005, “Australian Anti-Terror Raids: A Serious Plot Thwarted”, Terrorism Monitor, Volume 3, Issue 23, Jamestown Foundation

[22] Gunaratna R., 2007, “Homegrown Terrorism”, ABC News June 5, 2007, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/05/1943497.htm  accessed 10/04/2011