All Sympathy and no Solutions

The steady stream of Israeli apologists continue to permeate the internet and newspapers with an almost uniformly formulaic response to the world’s bemusement at the Gaza invasion. The following example comes from today’s Canberra Times by Bren Carlill; analyst for the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (very influental political lobby group in Australia). Carlill argues that because Hamas does not recognize the soverignty of the state of Israel “iniatives, proposals and international conferences are a waste of time.”  To be fair, Israel is not without it’s reasons for unilateral agression. To the north is Hezbellah, Syria and Iran, to the south and west is Hamas in Gaza and within Israel is a growing population of Arab-Israelis who don’t identify as Israelis; in short Israel is justified when it claims it is surrounded by enemies.

The apologists describe their situation fairly acurately, but where their arguments break down is regarding how to deal with the problems. Implicit in nearly every opinion piece from an Israeli lobbyist, is the assumption that defeating Hamas will end the rocket attacks and military power is the only solution. Apologists love to ask critics “what would you do if rockets were being fired at your town week in week out?” As if reacting with tanks and airstrikes is the only logical response;  it might be tempting to react with force but what would that response achieve? To express my point in a slightly different example, imagine a situation in which I discover my wife is cheating on me with another man; how do I react? It might be tempting to find both of them and punch them but what would that response achieve? By reacting in the most obvious way I have probably done more damage than good and made the situation even worse for myself. The same thing happens when Israel lashes out at it’s neighbours, it merely exacerbates an already dire situation.

By being so single minded and aggressive in their efforts to define the nature of the negotiations and peace treaty talks, Israel undermines their ability to achieve their goals. By seeking to break Hamas they have strengthened it by assuring a steady stream of future recruits and inspiration among the Arab peoples. By attempting to forcibly assert which “moderate” Arab leaders they want to deal with, they have undermined the credibility of these leaders such in the eyes of the Arab people (it bears mentioning that the moderate Fatah faction was decisively defeated in Gaza elections in favor of Hamas). The Israeli response to these worsening problems? More force.

If Israeli apologists want to taken seriously, they must cease to be so dazzled with their military might and start seriously considering more realistic paths to peace. The question that must be asked before the next military strike is ordered is not whether the action is justified or is tempting but what must be asked is what the action will achieve.

What Malcom should Do

For as long as I can remember, the Liberal and National parties have been hopelessly out of touch on environmental and climate change issues. It seems that one of the primary purposes of Kevin Rudd’s proposed emission trading scheme was to use it to wedge the opposition. This is great politics if not also highly cynical and a slap in the face to those who voted for Labor largely on the basis of environmental issues.  It puts Malcolm Turnbull in a position whereby if he supports the scheme he will face a backlash from the climate change denialists within his coalition (Barnaby Joyce, Nick Minchin, Tony Abbott…) and he will therefore be leading a disunified (and therefore unelectable) party. If he refuses to support the scheme then he will be accused of being a climate change denier and face electoral oblivion. So what can he do?

Well Turnbull is in a better position than might first be realised. It is inceasingly apparent that Kevin Rudd underestimated the backlash and public disillusionment over his hopelessly inadequate emissions trading scheme. Turnbull has the chance to win over a large bloc of voters who are both environmentally conscious and disatisfied with Rudd’s response to these issues. Contrary to popular belief, environmentalism is not a “left wing” issue as Nick Minchin has stated. Turnbull’s own electrate of Wentworth in the well to do parts of Sydney hold green issues in high regard. Kevin Rudd is far more vulnerable than he may realise on the environment.

David Cameron’s British Conservative Party is a fine example of a party that has redefined itself as being a “green” party. A fine example of this is Cameron’s opposition to a third terminal being built at Heathrow airport. By opposing the runway the Tories have tapped into the public fury at Gordon Brown’s politically incompetent and ineffective Labor Party and the Conservative’s polling has been boosted as a result. It is important to stress that David Cameron has not offered any geniunely productive or innovative solutions to cutting emissions, he has simply made a lot of noise on the issue. This is exactly what Turnbull should do.

Turnbull can outflank Rudd on the Climate Change issue by broadening the terms of the debate beyond arguing about emissions trading. Why not propose a review on “greening” public infrastructure, transport, funding for this research or that. Turnbull can criticise Rudd for handing out huge subsidies to big business while Turnbull is more interested in helping small businesses and helping every day Australians adapt – that sort of thing. By hammering these lines week in week out, Turnbull can exploit the public confusion about the complex emissions scheme, and he can exploit the desire within the community to do something about emissions at a local level.

I should stress that I have absolutely no faith in the Coalition’s ability to meaningfully prepare Australia for climate change; this is an argument about what political tactics Turnbull might play, rather than an argument about what actually should be done to improve environmental policy. Having said this, I don’t have much more faith in Labor and especially Rudd to do anything meaningful. Indeed if Turnbull was to re-image himself as green it would serve Rudd right for so cynically attempting to wedge the Liberals and for so blatantly disregarding the primary concerns of one of Labor’s key demographics.

A shallow gesture

With his new anti-binge drinking iniative, Rudd is sending out the
message that it is the behaviour and personal conduct of sportspeople
(particuarly in the football codes) that are responsible for
encouraging a binge drinking culture, but there are two things wrong
with this analysis. First, it ignores the fact that it is only a tiny
percentage of sportspeople who bring the game into disrepute with
off-field antics. Last year in fact probaly saw more alcohol scandals
involving politicians than sportspeople. After scandals such as
“Iguanagate” and the antics of Troy Buswell one wonders why there
isn’t any pressure on politicians to send a better message to the
public. The second problem with this iniative is it’s failure to take
into account the fact that most sports are sponsored by corporations
that sell alcohol. It’s a bit rich to say that sportspeople are
sending bad messages to kids when anyone watching a game on TV is
likely to be saturated with ads romantacizing and idealizing alcohol
and fast food. One of the iconic images of 2008 was that of Todd
Carney as he was ejected from the Raiders. As he was speaking about
the consequences of his alcohol problems one could not help noticing
the Local Licquor slogan branded on his Raiders shirt. It is an image
that demonstrates the futility of Rudd’s anti-binge drinking iniative;
it treats the symptoms and ignores the causes.

Barking Barnaby

Barnaby’s opposition to Kevin Rudd’s proposed emissions trading scheme is hopelessly narrow minded. He is correct in asserting that “it’s a load of
rubbish… that Australia is going to change the climate”, but Joyce
does not consider any of the other justifications for establishing an
emissions trading scheme. Of course we contribute only a tiny
proportion of the world’s carbon emissions, but our economy is largely
based around exporting coal and per individual we emit more greenhouse
gases than any other country. This means that in the context of any
global treaty to limit emissions we are hardly likely to be looked
upon sympathetically by world leaders such as Obama and Sarkozy. It is
hard to imagine how a global treaty would not introduce economic
measures to discourage large scale coal exporting and when one
considers the recent downsizing at Rio Tinto and also Rudd’s
commitment to deliver heavy subsidies to carbon intensive companies
for the next few years it is likely that our coal industry will
increasingly cost us money instead of earn it. By stubbornly refusing
to re-adapt our economy we will be be isolating ourselves as it
gradually becomes unprofitable to base an economy around carbon
intensive industries and exports. It is increasingly irrelevant
whether you believe the climate science or not, because it is
inevitable that a new treaty will redefine the world’s economic
structure and it is our choice whether we give ourselves an economic
advantage by adapting quickly, or whether we are dragged kicking and
screaming into the new era.

Take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror

In his first hours as President, Obama has already got the ball rolling on one key issue. “Within hours of taking office, Obama’s administration filed a motion to halt the war crimes trials for 120 days, until his new administration completes a review of the much-criticised system for trying suspected terrorists… The halt to the tribunals was sought “in the interests of justice,” the official request to the judges said.”

This is an encouraging start towards resolving the very difficult issue of the interrogation methods and conduct of the US Army and Intelligence organizations in regards to treating detainees of the “War on Terror”. I am not specifically referring to the legal status and future of the Guantanamo detainees, but rather I am interested in exactly how the Obama administration will confront and account for the human rights abuses  and war crimes that were sanctioned by the previous administration. One cannot simply talk these burning issues away, for doing so completely undermines the moral foundations on which the US asserts itself. How can America project itself as a nation founded on ideals if it is conspicuously fails to hold figures such as Donald Rumsfeld and Douglas Feith to account? The problem from Obama’s point of view, is that he will be squandering precious political capital if he allows the instigators of the Bush administrations barbaric interrogation methods to be charged. Republicans will be quick to accuse Obama of pursuing partisan score setting and this will surely lose him numbers in the Senate which he so desperately needs to pass economic and environmental legislation essential to his mandate. Despite these political difficulties, the temptation to simply reform interrogation laws and end the matter there must be resisted. To make such a move would be disasterous for the country’s moral interests. Not only would future historians record that in the 21st century, the self proclaimed moral beacon of the world engaged in torture, but also that they did not have the courage to come to terms with their mistakes. It is overly optimistic to expect the new administration to hold the likes of Rumsfeld and Feith to account, but at a bare minimum Obama must commision a review or appoint a body that assesses responsibility and opens up these past practises to the full glare of the public eye. The US cannot hope to move on until they come to terms with the crimes their government commited.

Jon “Favs” Favreau

As everyone is well aware one of Obama’s best political assets is his lofty and inspirational rhetoric. There is no denying that he is a way with words. Clever, catchy and uplifting, Obama quotes force their way into your head and suddenly there’s a relevant Obama quote to apply to every contemporary political and social trend. My personal favourite  “We need leaders telling us not what we want to hear but what we need to hear” seems to encapsulate the main flaws in Western democratic political systems.

I’ve always been curious as to how exactly these speeches are written. Obviously he could not have written every speech on his own (almost impossible when the campaign trail requires new rhetoric every day), but I have wondered to what extent are the speeches the product of moments of brilliance or the product of long painful hours of trial and error. This question was partially answered by an article from today’s Guardian newspaper. A rather fascinating account of the speech writing relationship between two accomplished wordsmiths; Obama and the twenty seven year old John Favreau.

“In composing the high notes of the speech, Obama has leant on Favreau, whom he discovered almost by chance four years ago when the younger man was working on John Kerry’s failed presidential bid. “Favs” has since studied Obama’s speech patterns and cadences with the intensity of a stalker. He memorised the 2004 speech to the Democratic national convention which first brought Obama into the limelight. He is said to carry Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From My Father, wherever he goes. As a result, last November when Favreau sat down to write the first draft of the inaugural address, he could conjure up his master’s voice as if an accomplished impersonator.

That skill had been put to almost daily use in the 18 months of brutal campaigning on the presidential trail. Favreau would be up most nights until 3am, honing the next day’s stump speeches in a caffeine haze of espressos and Red Bull energy drinks, taking breaks to play the video game Rock Band.

Obama is an accomplished writer in his own right, and the process of drafting with his mind reader is collaborative. The inaugural speech has shuttled between them four or five times, following an initial hour-long meeting in which the president-elect spoke about his vision for the address, and Favreau took notes on his computer.

Favreau then went away and spent weeks on research. His team interviewed historians and speech writers, studied periods of crisis, and listened to past inaugural orations. When ready, he took up residence in Starbucks in Washington and wrote the first draft. The end result will be uttered on the steps of the Capitol.

Obama is an accomplished writer in his own right, and the process of drafting with his mind reader is collaborative. The inaugural speech has shuttled between them four or five times, following an initial hour-long meeting in which the president-elect spoke about his vision for the address, and Favreau took notes on his computer.

Favreau then went away and spent weeks on research. His team interviewed historians and speech writers, studied periods of crisis, and listened to past inaugural orations. When ready, he took up residence in Starbucks in Washington and wrote the first draft. The end result will be uttered on the steps of the Capitol.”