Indonesia demands explanation from Australia over WikiLeaks-published court order

Indonesia demands explanation from Australia over WikiLeaks-published court order

Date

August 1, 2014 - 12:17AM

• 60 reading now
• 
  

Michael Bachelard

Indonesia correspondent for Fairfax Media

View more articles from Michael Bachelard

Follow Michael on Twitter
Follow Michael on Google+
Email Michael

Tony Abbott and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in Indonesia in June. Photo: Ed Wray

The Australian government’s attempts to protect international
relations by suppressing details of a sensitive court case in Victoria
appeared to have backfired, prompting Indonesian President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono to demand an explanation.



Apparently in response, the Australian government released an
extraordinary statement late on Thursday saying that the “Indonesian
President and the former president are not the subject” of court
proceedings which Australian media outlets are otherwise banned from
reporting.




A blanket suppression order prevents Fairfax Media and other
Australian outlets reporting the contents of the Victorian Supreme Court
case, an affidavit in the case, or even the suppression order itself.
The order was sought to protect the reputation of international leaders.



But the order was published on international site WikiLeaks, where it can be read.




After the document was uploaded, Dr Yuhoyono insisted that
Australia immediately clarify why his name had been mentioned in such a
context.



"I ask that Australia issue a statement that both [former
president] Megawati [Sukarnoputri]] and my names are unstained, and so
they do not defame other Indonesian officials. We want to hear directly
from Australia," Dr Yudhoyono said, as reported by news portal Viva.



He later took to Twitter to add to his comments.



“The Government of Australia should be completely open and
make transparent its law enforcement process and not cover it up”,  the
president tweeted.



Another said: “The Government of Australia should not issue
policies or statements that may raise suspicion about people who are
outside Australia”.



It was on his Twitter account in November last year where Dr
Yudhoyono first made clear his displeasure at Mr Abbott’s responses to
the spying revelations.



Late on Thursday, the Department of Foreign Affairs put out a
statement headlined: “Suppression orders: Securency court proceedings”,
saying the case “names a large number of individuals” but that “the
naming of such figures in the orders does not imply wrongdoing on their
part”.



“The Australian Government obtained suppression orders to
prevent publication of information that could suggest the involvement in
corruption of specific senior political figures in the region, whether
in fact they were or not,” the statement says.



“The Government considers that the suppression orders remain
the best means for protecting the senior political figures from the risk
of unwarranted innuendo … The Government stresses that the Indonesian
President and the former President are not the subject of the Securency
proceedings.”



But the innuendo reached the ears of the Indonesian
President, who is already suspicious of the government over revelations
that, in 2007, Australia tapped his phone and the phones of his wife and
inner circle.



The revelation, and its mishandling by the Abbott government,
plunged relations between the two countries into turmoil and
negotiations over a “code of conduct” to govern such spying have been
under way since last December. The issue had been expected to be
resolved by next month.



But on Thursday Dr Yudhoyono said his Foreign Minister, Marty
Natalegawa, had been in contact with his ambassador in Australia, as
well as with  Australia’s ambassador in Jakarta to discuss the latest
disruption to the relationship.



Dr Yudhoyono requested that the government of Tony Abbott
reveal to Indonesia  as clearly as possible  which officials were under
suspicion, both in Australia and in Indonesia.



“If there are elements of this case in Indonesia, for
example, please tell us who is involved … If law breaking is suspected,
what is the case? And if it does exist, please work with the Indonesian
corruption eradication commission (KPK),” Dr Yudhoyono said.



"Indonesia is now the midst of implementing an aggressive
campaign against corruption. If there are elements in Indonesia who are
considered to be engaged, please reveal who they are.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indonesia-demands-explanation-from-australia-over-wikileakspublished-court-order-20140731-zz75y.html#ixzz394ipvQc6

Tony Abbott: Israel right or wrong

Tony Abbott: Israel right or wrong

Lyn Bender 31 July 2014, 2:30pm 16

InternationalPolitics

While the Palestinian Holocaust continues, with the death
toll in Gaza reaching 1,360 – mostly women and children – Prime
Minister Tony Abbott remains silent, writes Lyn Bender.



ISRAEL’S OPERATION PROTECTIVE EDGE began on the 8^th of July. There have been several brief humanitarian ceasefires; but the bombardment of the Gaza Strip continues with extreme vengeance.



In the current bombardment and military ground incursion, at time of writing, over 1,360 Palestinians have died and over 6,000 have been injured so far.



On 17 July, Russian separatists in the Ukraine shot down Malaysian airliner MH17. It was mistakenly identified as a Ukrainian cargo plane as it flew over a war zone. The death toll was 298.



Both these events are immensely sad. However, Prime Minister Tony
Abbott, seems able to pay attention to only one of these tragedies. In
stark contrast to the attention he has paid to the MH17 tragedy, Tony Abbott ignores the suffering in Gaza.



Considering the incessant, breathless statements, interviews and regular updates and calls for accountability being offered
in the wake of the  MH17 airline loss, the contrasting lack of empathy
and concern for the dead and injured in Gaza, is breathtaking.



Until the recent announcement
by Julie Bishop of  $5 million in humanitarian aid to the people of
Gaza, the Abbott Government has shown no concern for the plight of
Palestinians.



Fairfax reports that 27 Greens and ALP parliamentarians have condemned

'... the ongoing Israeli military bombardment and invasion of Gaza.'

Julie Bishop has at last issued a limp statement on behalf of the Government, expressing

"...deep concern about the violence in Gaza."

But where is Tony?



In 2012, as leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott declared to the Australian Jewish News.

“In so many ways, [Israel is] a country so much like Australia, a liberal, pluralist democracy,” he said, “A beacon of freedom and hope in a part of the world which has so little freedom and hope.”

He added that Australians “can hardly begin to comprehend” the existential threat Israelis live under.

“It is so easy for us in Australia to get moral qualms, if you
like, when we read about Israeli actions in – on the West Bank for
instance – or Israeli involvement in Lebanon.”

Abbott was pictured (top right) wearing the traditional Yarmulke, or
scull cap, for the occasion and endorsed Israel’s right to defend
itself, without any caveats.



It was redolent of his dismissal of our Sri Lankan human rights abuses and torture last year:

"Sometimes, in difficult circumstances, difficult things happen."

Does Abbott still dismiss "moral qualms".



Yesterday, Israel bombed a declared UN school shelter, killing sleeping children — despite being warned 17 times by the UN of the shelter's refugee status.



Like an echo of the famous Harold Holt speech that supported expanded involvement in the Vietnam war: “all the way with LBJ”,  Abbott has declared:

"When Israel is fighting for its very life, well, as far as I’m concerned, Australians are Israelis. We are all Israelis.”

In a surprising departure from their usual style, Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop are traversing the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross stages of grief. Both have declared, feelings of shock, outrage, sadness, and anger.



Can we hope that humanity resides in the cold heart of the Abbott Government, despite its cruel policies on refugees and a horror budget that punishes the vulnerable? Or is this merely a politically induced flash in the pan?



News flash:

‘Handling of MH17 delivers PM a polls boost’

But while Abbott is silent on Gaza, others are speaking.

• Palestinian scholar and legislator Hanan Ashrawi, in an interview on ABC News, appealed for an end to the killing. Ashrawi was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize in 2003.
• The UN Security Council has called for an "immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza.
• Amnesty International Australia’s spokesperson Sarah Seleh has pleaded for an end to the killing and of the promotion of war through "one liner ‘propaganda".
• UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned Israel saying: “This is wrong. Why are you continuing to kill people?”
• American world-renowned economist and advisor to the UN Jeffrey Sachs has  tweeted: 'Israeli bombing of Gaza is barbaric. Israel has evaded serious peace efforts for years.'
• UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay has raised strong concerns about Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

In contrast, Tony Abbott extended his condolences to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the deaths of Israelis.



No condolences have been offered regarding the deaths of Palestinians — one third of whom are children.





Attorney General George Brandis rejected the term ‘Occupied Territories’ for East Jerusalem as "controversial and tendentious", despite
UN and general international consensus on this designation. This was
seen internationally and by Israel as signaling support for Israel and a
downgrading of support for Palestinian rights.



In an interview on July 17^th on 3AW after lengthy discussion of the Malaysian MH17 tragedy, Tony Abbott refused to be drawn on any comment about Gaza:



Neil Mitchell:

“But you just spoke about powerful countries bullying less
powerful countries. Is that what’s happening with Israel and Hamas or
does Australia support what Israel is doing?”

PM Abbott:

“Well, we certainly support Israel’s right to exist. We support
Israel’s right to self-defence and we deplore the attacks on Israel from
Gaza. Now I don’t have any further detail on what may or may not be
happening at the moment. All I know is that Israel is regularly rocketed
from Gaza. That shouldn’t happen and, look if…”

Neil Mitchell:

“Well the United States has said there shouldn’t be a ground
invasion, If there is a ground invasion. Do we have a position on it?”

Prime Minister:

“Well, as you can imagine Neil, I’ve been rather preoccupied this
morning with the matter involving at least 23 Australians who have died
on an aircraft, which has been apparently shot down by Russian-supplied
missiles. Now that, if you don’t mind me saying so is, I think, of
higher priority than offering commentary on something that doesn’t
directly involve Australians.”

But Australians are "involved" with Israel and the Palestinian territories.





For decades, Australians have served in the Israeli Defence Force. It is common for hundreds of young Australians to spend time in Australian Zionist groups developing a strong identification with Israel. A year spent post high school in Israel is called making Aliyah.



An estimated 45,000 of the Palestinian diaspora live in Australia. Many Australians who were recently advised to evacuate from Gaza have dual citizenship and family in Gaza.



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintains that Israel is acting purely in self-defence.



Today, the killing has recommenced and Netanyahu has declared:

“There is no war more just than this.”

He states that only Hamas is to blame for the civilian deaths in Gaza.



But the root of the problem
is that the creation of the state of Israel has led to the displacement
and occupation and oppression of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants
—the result is ongoing violent conflict.



It must be emphasised: this is not a conflict between equals.



Criticism of Israel frequently incurs the accusation of anti-Semitism.



Many Jewish people, including my family, suffered the horrors of genocide.



Surely the Jewish diaspora – Israelis and anyone with a shred of humanity – must condemn this re-enactment upon the Palestinians of the displacement, injustice and brutality suffered by Jews.



The fascist boot is now on the other foot, as Netanyahu threatens a “prolonged” army operation in Gaza.



The holocaust of Palestinians continues as Israel insists that it doesn’t target civilians.



Meanwhile, Tony Abbott remains silent.





You can follow Lyn Bender on Twitter @Lynestel.





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Baby boomer protection - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Baby boomer protection - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Baby boomer protection

• 
  
  July 31, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  Kaye Lee
  
• 
  18 Replies

• 
  Category: Politics, Social Justice
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  Tagged under:
  
  
  baby boomers, corporate protection, earn or learn, Newstart, Work for the dole, youth unemployment
• 
  
  
  Kaye Lee
  
  
  
  

Why is the Abbott government offering $10,000 to employ people who
are over 50?  We grew up in a time of free education and high
employment so presumably these people already have some work experience
which puts them in front of young job applicants.  Very few over 50s
would have young dependent children.  Most would have accumulated some
possessions over the years. They are also a lot closer to the end of
their working life.


Whilst I can understand the despair of unemployment in middle-age,
that $10,000, rather than being an inducement paid to an employer, could
pay 40 Newstart recipients for a week.


The idea that young people are choosing unemployment because they are
lazy is ridiculous.  This may be true for a very small minority but
there are already rules in place to deal with people who are abusing the
system.


Policies such as work for the dole, ”earn or learn” and intensive
job-seeking ignore social disadvantage.  It assumes a level playing
field, whereby all unemployed people can obtain work if they are
incentivised to do so.


Anglicare have released a study into what works to get disadvantaged job-seekers into employment.


The paper, prepared by the Australian Centre for Community Services
Research at Flinders University, says job-seekers’ individual
aspirations need to be identified, as well as their life circumstances. 
It reports success with broader capacity-building around work,
including depression management, communication, fitness, relationships,
cooking, budgeting and computing skills.


People out of work for the long term need individual skills and
capability development to help them find and sustain a job, rather than
simply being matched to job vacancies.

“Beyond Supply and Demand is a research paper on our
network’s evidence of what works for people excluded from the workforce.
Its findings are that we are most effective when we recognise the
person – and their goals and ambitions – at the centre of exclusion and
acknowledge their circumstances, and the barriers and challenges they
face.  It’s what we call a “life first” rather than “work first”
approach.


Anglicare services around the country tell us that a
one-size-fits-all-approach to getting people into the workforce simply
doesn’t work. Our most effective programs use a case management model,
which provide services based on individual needs, build strong links
with local employers and other support services, and provide
post-employment support, such as job coaching, mentoring, peer support,
personal development and career guidance.


Most Australians have hopes and preferences for their future, and
many have important attachments to their families and local communities.
People out of work are no different. They want a ‘normal’ life too; a
job and their own home. And it is our job to see they get the chance.


Beyond Supply and Demand addresses issues at the heart of the McClure
Welfare Review, how to shift the focus of working age welfare to
getting more people into work. There is a lot of comment in the media
suggesting people don’t try hard enough. Our evidence is that real jobs
and individual support makes the difference.”

I was on the management committee for a homeless youth refuge.  We
provided medium term accommodation for 15 to 24 year olds.  These kids
usually did not have family homes they could return to.  Many of them
lacked basic life skills and that was a large part of our program with
them.  We worked on a rewards based system.  Residents were not
compelled to complete tasks but were rewarded when they did with things
like mobile phone credit or a dinner out with a person of their choice. 
We helped them with applications for courses and jobs.  We had
partnership agreements with employers and community housing groups and
would provide outreach support when our residents moved out.  It was
very rare for us to have to ask someone to leave because they were not
pulling their weight in the house though we did have to refer a couple
who were violent.


What is to happen to these kids if benefits are withdrawn for six
months of the year?  The refuge cannot run on the small government grant
it receives alone.


It is at the start of someone’s life when they need the most help and
support.  It isn’t just work experience that young people lack, they
also lack life experience and it can be very daunting trying to enter
the adult workforce with no assistance.  Continual rejection takes its
toll on the sturdiest of egos let alone on vulnerable youth from
disadvantaged backgrounds.


How are they to apply for 40 jobs per month or travel around to
interviews if they have no income?  Where do they live?  What do they
eat?  What do they wear?  How do they get anywhere?  How do they stay
healthy?


Suggesting that they should head off to Tasmania for the fruit
picking season is so trite.  Firstly you are asking them to move away
from any family, friend, or community support they may have.  It also
does nothing for addressing meaningful employment that would see people
sustain a job.


I also note that our Prime Minister was not willing to move to where
his employment is, a decision that is costing us tens of millions of
dollars which could have supported many Newstart recipients for a long
time.


Our youth are our future and abandoning them when they need our help
the most is cruelty.  This government is fixated on punitive measures
for our most vulnerable while working hand over fist to exonerate
corporate malfeasance with amnesties for offshore tax cheats, changes to
financial protection laws, and “safe harbours” protecting corporate
directors from personal liability.


One must wonder at the priorities of these middle-aged white men who
have reaped the benefits of the baby boomers era and who are now
hell-bent on denying those same opportunities to our children.

Is there really such a thing as national debt? - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Is there really such a thing as national debt? - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Is there really such a thing as national debt?

• 
  
  July 25, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  John Kelly
  
• 
  15 Replies

• 
  Category: Politics
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  Tagged under:
  
  
  featured
• 
  
  
  John Kelly
  
  
  
  

In a recent article by Warwick Smith in The Guardian,
a group of economists refuted three of the government’s claims, namely
that there was a budget emergency, that there was a debt crisis and that
the carbon tax was an economic wrecking ball.


Knowing how difficult it is to get economists to agree on anything,
this seemed like quite a coup and reading it only served to remind me of
some of the government’s ‘over the top’, exaggerated and often
inaccurate outbursts from various ministers in their feverish attempts
to scare us into thinking we have a problem with the economy.


Leaving the matter of the carbon tax to another time, the issue of
debt and deficit is quite another matter and should be pursued
vigorously.


If there is one way to prove or disprove the existence of a national
debt, it is to ask the question: to whom is the debt owed? Government
debt (so-called) occurs when the government places a tender on the open
market. This is done through The Australian Office of Financial Management. They are the ones who place tenders for the sale of Treasury Bonds.


The most recent tender was for $1.5 billion on 18th July 2014 (Tender
705) at 2.75%. This tender attracted 92 bidders who sought to invest a
total of $3.881 billion. The tender, therefore, was oversubscribed and
in the end, 39 bidders were successful, 27 of whom received their
requested allocation and 12 received a partial allocation. So, bad luck
for the 53 bidders who missed out.


The
thing is, these bidders were actually competing to buy these bonds. No
one was twisting their arm to provide the money. They were, in fact,
competing to invest in Australia’s future. That doesn’t sound like the
government incurring a debt to me. It sounds much more like people or
companies investing in shares on the stock market. I did something
similar many years ago when Telstra was put up for sale. The same thing
happened then. The offer was oversubscribed and I didn’t get as much as I
asked for.


But, just like the stock market, the buyers of these bonds can sell
them, if they wish, on the bond market. So, if any of those 53 bidders
who missed out on the initial offer, or anyone else, wanted to get in on
Tender 705, they still could. So that suggested to me that the
government didn’t have to repay that bond, it could simply be traded for
the life of the country on the bond market. Except that it does have a
use-by date and in the case of Tender 705, that date is 21st October
2019.


But back to the issue at hand.


So, in this case, the government has just raised $1.5 billion
repayable on 21st October 2019. The question to be asked here is: what
did the government want to do with this money? It looks very similar to a
company wanting to raise capital for an acquisition program by
announcing a new share issue.


When
I put this question to the nice man I spoke with at The Australian
Office of Financial Management (AOFM), he said the money goes into
consolidated revenue to cover periodic shortfalls in the difference
between revenues and outgoings. All of which sounds similar to me
borrowing twenty dollars from my brother to buy petrol while waiting for
next week’s pension deposit to arrive in my bank account. His answer
was what I expected but it was the wrong answer. The bonds are issued to
soak up the overflow of cash in the banking system, but he was not
going to admit that. It is possible he did not know that.


Every six months the AOFM then issues coupons to the investors
(mostly banks), to the value of the interest rate promised. Then, in
2019, the government will repay the principal together with the value of
the interest for the final six months.


At the end of each financial year, the treasury accountants add the
tax revenues received plus borrowings derived from the bond sales and
treasury note issues and that amount should equal the total expenditure
for the year. All of which means the books are balanced.


That still leaves unresolved the matter of the money borrowed and the
interest payable on these bonds. That is essentially what we call the
Deficit. It has to be repaid, doesn’t it? Where does that come from? My
friend at the AOFM told me that interest and principal is paid out of
general revenue. He pointed out that of the 2014 budget expenditure of
$401 billion, $14 billion represented interest payments. Another wrong
answer. The interest payment is created out of thin air (ex nihilo).


So then I put the question to him: why not just create the money out
of thin air (ex nihilo) to pay both the interest and the money borrowed?
He was aghast. Not a good idea, he said. That causes inflation, he
said. I suggested that the inflationary element could be controlled by
limiting the amount of money in circulation through taxation. Yes, he
said, that’s possible. I further suggested that by creating the money we
would effectively reduce the value of our dollar on world markets.
Isn’t that what we all want for our export industries and local
manufacturers?


At this point my friend suggested I call the Treasurer; he said that
what I was proposing was a policy matter for government not one for the
AOFM to answer. Very true. But his answer betrayed an undeniable truth.
It revealed all too clearly that debt can be extinguished out of thin
air if a government wanted it so, and that such a policy could be
beneficial to Australian export business and local manufacturing.


That then raises the obvious question: why does a government that can
create money ex nihilo (from thin air), feel that it needs to borrow?


This,
to me, makes a mockery of Joe Hockey and every other government
minister’s claims of a debt crisis, and pretty much everything else they
say. The government wants us to think, as I once did, that running a
nation’s economy is the same as running household debt.


It isn’t and all it takes to explain this is the will to do it.

Australia beckons India: more antagonism from the Abbott Government toward China - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Australia beckons India: more antagonism from the Abbott Government toward China - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Australia beckons India: more antagonism from the Abbott Government toward China

• 
  
  July 24, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  The AIM Network
  
• 
  1 Reply

Image from geostrategicorbit.com

• 
  Category: Politics
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  Tagged under:
  
  
  Abbott Government, Asia-Pacific Region, Australia, China, India, United States
• 
  
  
  The AIM Network
  
  
  
  

Is the Abbott Government playing a major part in inflaming and destabilising the security of the Asia-Pacific Region? Dr Strobe Driver reports.


Prime Minister Abbott’s quest for the attention of right-wing
nationalists’ that are seeking to contain China has swung from the
United States of America (US), to Japan and is now making its way
further West into the Indian Ocean. This time to increase a military
attachment to another forgotten ‘ally’: India. This is a circle of
madness and it will be to Australia’s detriment that this government has
continued the cycle started by the Rudd-Gillard governments with the
deployment—and then ongoing rotation—of US marines through the Northern
Territory. There is a reason for this ongoing madness which needs to be
addressed in light of history in the Asia-Pacific (A-P) region.


With the knowledge that Australia has punched far above its weight in
the region since the end of World War Two, consecutive governments have
sought to keep this modus operandi alive; and as a continuum in their
foreign policy objectives. As a result of this, Australia has regularly
invested itself in military collisions either directly in the region or
external to the A-P in order to bring about enhanced ‘security’ and
‘stability.’ The eventual aim of these incursions has been, and no doubt
will continue to be, that countries which Australia decides to
intervene into should convert to the Western liberal-democratic model of
government; and governance. Australia has entered the fray of regional
collisions in places such as Central Asia (Afghanistan), the Middle East
(the Persian Gulf), Southeast Asia (Vietnam), East Timor/Timor Leste
and of course numerous other regional locations that have ‘needed’
Australia’s presence—the Butterworth Air Force Base in Malaysia and
Australia’s use of it as a forward-defence locale is an example of
involvement without an actual collision of forces taking place. Whether
or not Australia’s involvement in the aforementioned has been beneficial
to those that have experienced Australia’s direct (read: military)
assistance and whether Australia entered these places voluntarily or was
coerced by other state actors—the US in particular—are moot points and
beyond the scope of this essay, suffice to say Australia has made its
presence known and continues to believe that actual force and/or the
threat-of-force remain apparatuses that ensure stability.


As with many a country that has experienced the thrill of exercising
extramural power due to either location or military transport
capabilities, the days of Australia utilizing forward-defence and/or
embarking upon actual incursions should be disbanded, as it encourages
continual usage of a governance mechanism that is backed by force, and
this model generates backlashes. More to the point, the world has
changed from the days of Western Eurocentric and European-models of
government and governance being passively accepted by other
nation-states. Regardless of the heart-warming feelings the
Western/Eurocentric world may have toward the model that has been 
successfully executed since 1648 through mercantilism, trade,
suzerainty, protectorates, colonialism, forced alliances,
post-colonialism state-making—Kuwait, Israel, and the dividing up of the
spoils of Africa amongst Europe is to mention only several examples of
deliberate state-making—with the addendum of brute force, will not alter
the coming inevitable and unpalatable truth. The time is fast
approaching to acknowledge the overarching and heretofore unquestioned
influence of the West is in decline, and hence the rise of China is
taking place. The era pax-Sino is the new reality.


Extrapolating on the abovementioned, the new
problematics for the West, and for Australia in particular, is that the
Abbott government, by actively seeking out these new alliances is also
indulging in the suppression of this reality. Raging against the
military, economic, geo-political and geo-strategic rise of China
signals a fear of disengagement from the superlative-version of Western
history which was one of having control of the high seas and (in later
years) the airspace above for centuries. This will not remain the case
into the future and holding onto history signals an unwillingness to
admit to the reality of the situation-at-hand: the era of pax-Sino
is not only the new reality, it is fast-arriving. Therefore, no amount
of foreign policy enmity shown to the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
through scrambling around trying to find new Asia-Pacific allies will
change this and moreover, it is sending a supercilious message to a
country that will exercise the most control over the A-P region
regardless of whether there are policies of containment directed toward
it or not. Overt messages toward India by the Abbott government is
foolhardy and is disavowing China’s place in the region, which in turn
will encourage China to ignore Australian input into regional
machinations. The dismissal of China’s input into regional ministrations
by Australia in recent times has succeeded in infuriating China.  This
has been reflected in newspaper headlines such as, ‘Australia and India
to strengthen military ties’[1] with regard to India, and ‘Defence alliance to anger China’[2]
with regard to Japan. These references are evidence that there is a
renewed commitment to the containment of China by Australia in all
spheres and is signalling to the Chinese government that the only role
that Australia accepts of China is it being a compliant (and growing)
trading partner. The pressure the Abbott government is feeling and its
desire to not upset America is also dangerous as the Americans are also
not happy with Australia. This should encourage the Abbott government to
be more respectful of China and not antagonise it further. If China
reacts militarily, the possibility that America would come to
Australia’s aid becomes even more remote. The veiled threats of
‘president-in-waiting’ Hillary Clinton that Australia should not
‘two-time’[3]
America in negotiations should be taken as a clear signal that America
will judge any escalation at the time of it happening and it will not
necessarily default to its historic alliances. This as a stand-alone
issue should be enough to alert the Abbott government to understanding
that any moves to contain China in the region will be to the detriment
of Australia. Perhaps the most frightening undertone to Clinton’s
statement is that it mimics the George W. Bush mantra of a country being
either ‘with us or against us,’[4] or in simpler terms, Australia must choose
between America and China.   From the aforementioned, and with regard
to China, the evidence suggests Australia is actively moving toward the
containment of China even though there is no evidence America will
support this position; Japan has been newly-befriended and embraced with
a military/information exchange deal; and India’s status has been
upgraded. This is a combination of events that is fraught with danger
for Australia; and is tantamount to an invitation to disaster.


What however, does India have to offer Australia and the region that
may dissipate what could be defined as a ‘coming storm.’   Perhaps it
will balance the region by the Abbott government adopting a newfound
friend and ally?  A perspective is needed here.  Unfortunately, the
answer to the above is the elevation of India will do nothing for
stability in the region, as has the exchanges with Japan. These sudden
‘recognitions’ will only inflame Australia-China relations beyond the
required modicums of civility that trading partners have to indulge.
China will be furious at Australia’s new-found alliances. Moreover, the
PRC will observe it as a direct insult and another geo-strategic move
which further destabilizes an already fractious region.   The new
dynamics that Australia is attempting to set in place, beyond the
trading commodities such as iron ore and gold—about 40% of Australia’s
exports to India are of gold[5]—are
however misguided at best and flagrantly antagonistic to China at
worst. If Australia is counting on India to exercise a naval military
presence in order to be yet another bulwark to China, Australia is being
profoundly imprudent as India simply does not have the military-stretch
to extend beyond South Asia. India is also beset with regional
political issues such as poisonous border issues with China; ongoing
political and geo-strategic issues with Pakistan; and ongoing
difficulties with China-Pakistan relations. Domestically, India also has
enormous problems. Chronic poverty being the most overt—India’s
Economic Advisory Council deemed 363 million people to be living in
poverty in 2014[6]—and according to the Asian Development Bank it also has ‘rampant corruption and [is an] ineffective and corrupt state.’[7]
Perhaps the least acknowledged issue however, and one that drains vast
amounts of India’s time and energy is ‘a guerrilla war in twenty states
covering 40 per cent of the country’s land mass.’[8]
The nationalistic fervour shown by the people of India in their
electing of Narendra Modi will not change these endemic problems that
have (and are) facing India in the short term. Therefore, and regardless
of India’s resentment of China’s growing influence, India’s sway in the
region therefore, will remain ‘rhetorical and potential rather than
actual.’[9]


The inclusion of India as an incremental-increase  in the containment
of China in an A-P ‘triangle of defence’ is yet another simplistic
foreign policy alternative to actually engaging with China on deeper
more meaningful geo-political and geo-strategic levels. Australia will
come to deeply regret recent moves to elevate India beyond that of a
valued trading partner. Furthermore it actually signals Australia—in the
current government and in the previous one— is fundamentally incapable
of looking beyond trade for its meaningful geo-strategic and political
relationships, and is weak-willed when trying to negotiate its way
through the regional (and ever-increasing) maize of potential
conflict-probabilities—that is, unless the US demands it, and Australia
should dispense with this historical cloak which consecutive Australian
governments in particular, have been unable to throw off.   The military
move toward India when it has in fact been ignored by Australia for
decades, the cut backs in Australia’s foreign aid which must impact on
India notwithstanding, also signals a panic on behalf of India in its
desire to offset China’s influence in the region. This has become a
lightning rod with which Australia—as poorly constructed as the foreign
policy has been—has been able to capitalize on. The Abbott government is
expanding on the Gillard governments’ approach to the A-P belonging to
America, and in doing so is seeking to default to the containment of
China at the behest of America.  A significant part of this driving
force and reasoning is because the Abbott Conservative government is
unable and/or unwilling to unshackle Australia from its British-colonial
ruler-of-Asia mentality. The fusing together of these elements will
incrementally and then dramatically increase the chances of an exchange
of fire between military forces happening.


The irresponsible attitude and opportunistic intent Australia is
exhibiting by embracing Japan and now India, is another stepping-stone
into a war breaking out and of Australia having to concede that it
played a major part in inflaming and destabilising the region: it may
take a decade from 2014, but the signs of war are already on the
horizon. Whether the mechanisms of previous Australia’s foreign policy
continue to be employed, and if they remain mired in their colonial past
in the new ‘age of pax-Sino,’ they will be given, in the first
instance short shrift by the PRC; and in the second will heighten the
chances of a military response from China. The well-trodden historical
colonialist-path that Australia is attempting to engage with by allying
with India directly impacts on the chances of there being peaceful
outcomes in the A-P region. If the PRC adopts the British model of rule
in the region, that of using force to reinforce their superiority—as
Great Britain did throughout the 1800s—a war will come sooner rather
than later and India, like Japan and America, will put its interests
first and once again, due to the foolhardy military-driven foreign
policies being adopted by the Abbott government, Australia will be found
wanting. India is simply not capable of being a bulwark against China
regardless of the elevated status Australia offers it in the region.
Essentially, all the additional recognition is achieving is the
inflaming China’s sense of humiliation; and China’s tolerance of this
will not be indefinite.   A war with China is ever-closer due to the
Abbott government’s ill-thought through and shambolic foreign policy.


[1]

[1] John Garnaut. ‘Australia and India to strengthen military ties.’ The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media, July 1, 2014.


http://www.smh.com.au/world/australia-and-india-to-strengthen-military-ties-20140701-zss9o.html


[2]

[2] Mark Kenny and David Wroe ‘Defence alliance to anger China.’ The Age. Melbourne: The Age Company,July 9, 2014, 7.


[3]

[3] Paul McGeough. ‘Hillary Clinton criticises Australia for two-timing America with China.’ The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media, June 27, 2014.


[4]

[4] ‘You are either with us or against us.’ CNN.com. November 6, 2001.


http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/


[5]

[5] Michael Wesley. ‘The Elephant in the Room. Australia India Relations. The Monthly. February, 2012.


https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/february/1328594251/michael-wesley/elephant-room


[6]

[6] Manu Joseph. ‘Setting a High Bar for Poverty in India.’ The New York Times. July 9, 2014.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/world/asia/setting-a-high-bar-for-poverty-in-india.html?_r=0


[7]

[7] James Lamont and James Fontanell-Khan. ‘India: Writing on the wall.’ Financial Times. March 21, 2011.


[8]

[8] Martin Jacques. When China Rules the World. The end of the Western World and the birth of a new global order. England: Penguin Books, 2012, 448.


[9]

[9] https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/february/1328594251/michael-wesley/elephant-room


This article was first posted on Geo-Strategic Orbit and has been reproduced with permission.

Coalition's 'asset recycling' scheme watered down in Senate | World news | theguardian.com

Coalition's 'asset recycling' scheme watered down in Senate | World news | theguardian.com

Coalition's 'asset recycling' scheme watered down in Senate

Amendments include vetting of infrastructure projects worth more than $100m and Senate veto on certain incentives

• Daniel Hurst and Paul Farrell
• 
  
  
  
• 
  theguardian.com,
  Thursday 17 July 2014 20.36 AEST
  
• 
  Jump to comments (24)
  

Labor’s transport spokesman, Anthony
Albanese, said the upper house would not be able to stop states selling a
hospital to build a road but it could prevent an incentive payment
being made. Photograph: Lukas Coch for the Guardian

The Senate has imposed limitations on the government’s “asset
recycling” scheme, ensuring the upper house can veto proposed incentive
payments to the states for using the proceeds of privatisation to fund
infrastructure.

Labor won adequate support for an amendment to
ensure those infrastructure projects worth more than $100m were
assessed by Infrastructure Australia with a published cost-benefit
analysis.

The Senate passed the government’s legislation on Thursday night but only after agreeing to significant amendments.

The
fund will provide incentive payments to state and territory governments
that sell assets and use the proceeds to build "nation-building
infrastructure". The top-up provided by the federal government will be
15%.

One of the changes made by the Senate would ensure the
government could not grant particular incentive payments without using a
legislative instrument. This effectively means the Senate could
“disallow” any particular incentive.

Labor’s transport spokesman,
Anthony Albanese, said the upper house would not be able to “stop states
selling a hospital to build a road” but it would be able to prevent an
incentive payment being made for such a transaction.

“What it doesn’t allow is an open-slather attitude towards privatisation with no accountability,” he said.

The
government criticised the amendments during the Senate debate. The
finance minister, Mathias Cormann, said: “These amendments only add red
tape with no additional benefit. These additional amendments are about
increasing duplication.”

The Senate passed a Greens amendment
opposing the use of the fund for privatisation of essential services.
The Greens also secured Senate support to add the words “encouraging
privatisation” to the original name of the legislation, the asset
recycling fund bill.

The Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the bill
“would create a toll-roads slush fund at the expense of investment in
public transport, and at the expense of revenue-generating publicly
owned state assets”.

“State governments should not be bribed with
incentive payments to sell off public assets in public hands and the
Greens will fight this move all the way,” Ludlam said.

The bill will now have to return to the House of Representatives for approval.

Joe Hockey warns he will bypass Senate to push tough budget measures through

Joe Hockey warns he will bypass Senate to push tough budget measures through

Date

July 16, 2014 - 9:17AM

Lisa Cox

National political reporter

View more articles from Lisa Cox

Follow Lisa on Twitter
Follow Lisa on Google+
Email Lisa

Government's carbon tax warning

Labor will bring back the carbon tax if it wins the 2016 election warned the government in question time on Tuesday.

The Pulse Live with Judith Ireland

• Palmer deal pushes through wind back of financial advice laws
• Carbon tax strain taking toll on MPs

Treasurer Joe Hockey has warned the Labor Party and the
Greens to pass tough budget measures through the Senate or the
government will find other ways to push through savings.




But the opposition says if the government wants to "sneakily" avoid the parliament it will have a case to answer with voters.

Palmer United Party leader Clive Palmer and Treasurer
Joe Hockey. Mr Hockey has threatened to bypass MPs to get contentious
budget measures through. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

As the government prepares to front an extended Senate
sitting to pass the mining and carbon tax repeals, Mr Hockey said he was
prepared for "a marathon" negotiation to win the new Senate's approval
for unpopular budget measures, such as a new GP fee.




He said Labor and the Greens risked dealing themselves out of
any political influence if they did not approach talks with an open
mind.



"I say to Labor and the Greens if your instinct is to say no
immediately and to stick with that, you are dealing yourself out of
having an influence on public policy," Mr Hockey told ABC radio on
Wednesday.



"Because if the immediate reaction is no with no opportunity
to open discussion . . . then there are other alternatives that we can
take."



Mr Hockey said there were already budget measures that the government did not need legislation for.



He said if the government could not clinch the votes it
needed on the Senate floor for proposals that would be presented as
separate legislation, it would have no choice but to find alternatives.



Mr Hockey added that the warning was not "retribution"
against an increasingly unpredictable Senate, and the government
remained open to discussions.



''If the Senate chooses to block savings initiatives then we
need to look at other savings initiatives that may not require
legislation," Mr Hockey said.



''I would ask the Greens and the Labor Party, who between
them hold 35 votes on the floor of the Senate, to understand that there
are alternatives through government.''



Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said the opposition was happy to
negotiate with the government, but the Treasurer's approach was all
''bluff and bluster''.



''If the Treasurer thinks he can sneakily get his changes
through by somehow avoiding the parliament well he should explain to the
Australian people what he's planning instead of the normal bluff and
bluster we're get from this guy,'' he told ABC radio on Wednesday.



''What we're seeing is pretty much a Prime Minister and a
Treasurer who just think, well, we'll arrogantly say what's going to
happen and we'll just say that it will pass the Senate and saying it
will pass the Senate means it will pass the Senate.



''Well that's not how parliaments work.''



Follow us on Twitter

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-warns-he-will-bypass-senate-to-push-tough-budget-measures-through-20140716-3c008.html#ixzz37aLrLRv8