ISSUE 6 FEBRUARY 2012

ON THE SPOT WITH THE HON. KIM BEAZLEY, AC

OUR EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

GUILD POLITICS FOOD AND FEES US PRIMARIES THE EUROPEAN CRISIS CHINA AND ITS RIVALS

AUSTRALIA: OUR MONARCHY AND FLAG OCTOBER 2011

SUE BOYD: HER EXPERIENCES ABROAD - NOVEMBER 2011

CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................................................................4 EDITORS NOTE...........................................................................................................................................................................5 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR......................................................................................................................................................6 PRESIDENTS REPORT AND UPDATE................................................................................................................................7 COVER STORY ON THE SPOT WITH H.E. THE HON. KIM BEAZLEY, AC........................Angus Duncan.......................................8 GUILD POLITICS WHY REPRESENTATION NEEDS TO CHANGE..........................................Matthew McKenzie...........................14 NATIONAL STUDENT UNIONISM...................................................................Cameron Barnes................................15 THE TIME FOR INDEPENDENT CATERING HAS ARRIVED.................Ben Watson..........................................16 STAR AND PRIVATE CATERING......................................................................Laura Smith.........................................17 STATE POLITICS TAKING BIKIES FOR A RIDE.............................................................................Pearl Lim...............................................19 FEDERAL POLITICS FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY.............................................................................Stephen Puttick..................................20 BLOOD RED RISING..............................................................................................David Csolle.........................................22 A HAIRY PROPOSAL.............................................................................................Nicole Mumford.................................24 FIXING THE BROKEN PROCESS OF DOUBLE DISSOLUTIONS...........Ben Ritchie...........................................25 INTERNATIONAL POLITICS TWO-AND-A-HALF STATE SOLUTION.........................................................Aaron Tuckey......................................28 WHY THE EUROZONE MUST DIE...................................................................George Brown.....................................30 TUNNEL BETWEEN EAST AND WEST.........................................................Francis McLoughlin..........................35 A NATIONAL MYTH MEETS A NATIONAL DREAM................................Francis Cardell-Oliver......................37 THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.......................................................................Chris Colalillo.......................................40 ONE CHINA UNDER WHOM? ...........................................................................Jack Nitschke.......................................42 IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THE US AND CHINA INEVITABLE?.............Angus Duncan.....................................43 HUMAN RIGHTS.....................................................................................................Blair Hurley..........................................46 #FIRSTWORLDPROBLEMS...............................................................................Tim Sondalini......................................51 REVIEWS YOU CANT READ THIS BOOK..........................................................................Zach Cole...............................................53 THE IRON LADY.....................................................................................................Myles Parish........................................54 POLITIC-LOL..............................................................................................................................................................................56

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here in each article are entirely the opinion of the author and do not in any way reflect the opinions held by State Magazine, the UWA Politics Club, affiliated bodies or its members. Although we do receive donations, which we very much appreciate, they are not used in any way to influence or control the content of State Magazine. State Magazine remains an impartial and unaffiliated student political publication.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
State Magazine is published by the not-for- profit student organisation, UWA Politics Club. Each edition relies extensively on the goodwill and generosity of community members. If you are able to assist State, be it financially or in kind, you can be assured that your assistance will be supporting this nations future thinkers and promoting the dissemination of critical public policy analysis. This issue of State Magazine would not have been possible without the financial assistance of: o Margaret Quirk MLA o Edmund Dermer MLC o Gary Gray MP o Frank Alban MLA

UWA POLITICS CLUB COMMITTEE 2012 President: Angus Duncan Policy Vice-President: Tim Sondalini Social Vice-President: Nicole Mumford Treasurer: Duke Cole Secretary: Mitchell Goff Publications Officer: Myles Parish Sponsorship Officer: Aaron Tuckey Ordinary Committee Members: George Brown, Josh Dolgoy, Cassandre Hubert, Stephen Puttick

SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS

STEVE IRONS, MP FEDERAL MEMBER FOR SWAN

EDITORS NOTE
This the first issue of State for 2012. It was a daunting task I undertook when I was elected Publications Officer of the Politics Club in late 2011. We in 2012 had much to live up to after the start given to us by last years team. I, for one, like to think weve wound up doing okay. This issue is the largest in the brief history of STATE magazine as I write this note, were hitting 30,000 words. Since the last issue of STATE, weve seen a few changes around the place. At UWA, the new Student Guild is in full swing, with Liberty introducing no less than two major changes in its first 3 months. This promises to be a divisive year for student politics at UWA. In WA, weve seen little change in the government, even after a damaging in every sense run of bushfires over summer. The State Opposition, however, has seen a change in leadership to former Shadow Minister for State Development, Trade, Planning, Housing and Works, Mark McGowan. Throughout the year well be watching closely to see whether he provides a real challenge to Premier Colin Barnett. At a Federal level, the Gillard Government continues doggedly on, with ever-dipping polls and smiles. Things took an interesting turn after a riot on Australia Day, where both Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott almost came under attack from a very angry mob. This disgrace of a threat to the security of both key Parliamentary leaders bears prompt investigation. Internationally, all eyes are focused on the Republican nominations for President of the United States of America. Our US Correspondent, Chris Colalillo, provides in- depth coverage of the events in this issue.

As far as STATE is concerned, our intention to be the go-to service for Guild News begins in earnest this issue, with columns by the best and brightest of both sides of the Guild divide. Food and funding promise to be the biggest issues of 2012 in the Guild world, and well be right there with a microphone and a twitter feed ready to let you know whats going on. We will, of course, continue to offer the same broad coverage and opinion of everything else that we always have, both online and in print. Throughout this issue, look out for the pictures from our last few 2011 events. Ex-UWA student Alex Butterworth and the now-legendary Fred The Flag Man paid us a visit to debate both a shift to a Republic in Australia and a change to the Australian Flag itself. Respected diplomat and former UWA Guild President Sue Boyd came and spoke to us about her experiences abroad, providing much inspiration for those who want to enter the international sphere. We also had another Mock Parliament towards the end of the year, which was a great success. As for me, this is both my first and final issue as Publications Officer/Editor. Im moving to Curtin this year to try my hand at Primary Education, and so I pass the baton to whoever comes after me. I wish them every success, and hope they have as much fun and much less trepidation - as I did putting this all together. Id like to thank Angus and Aaron for their support and assistance getting so many articles and sponsors together if theres one thing I have to underline for the next person: make it a team effort! Finally, thanks to you, our readers and contributors. Its you who make it worth it. Just remember: Keep Politics Sexy! Myles Parish Editor 5

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor, Chad Satterlees article, Whats wrong with Marx, by the way? (Issue 5, 2011), highlights everything that is wrong with economics education in society. The author makes several key errors in his discussion of neoclassical economics, and thus grossly misrepresents this economic theory.

Satterlee outlines the seemingly bizarre assumptions that must hold for a perfectly competitive market. In real life, these conditions are not strictly met in any market, perhaps except for fruit and vegetables, or Pad Thai on the crowded streets of Bangkok. Any economist will be the first to admit this. By this implication, the author purports to dismiss the theory as a whole. But when you are studying human choice, there are no absolutes markets vary from monopolies such as Australia Post, to the monopolistically competitive markets that dominate retail, to the market for Pad Thai. These different markets satisfy the assumptions to a certain degree. And closer a market is to perfectly competitive, the higher the economic welfare of society (net benefits to society).

It is best to think of a perfectly competitive market as the goal, because a perfectly competitive market results in the highest level of economic welfare, and no deadweight loss. The closer one is to this goal, the better off society is. Then there is the most heinous of mistakes one that has oft been repeated by the author if you were to hear him speak about economics. It is enough to make cringe anyone who has learnt any economics, ever. An important feature of this world [being neoclassical economics] is that profits do not exist. No. That is wrong. There are two types of profits in economics accounting profit and economic profit. Accounting profit is the difference between revenue and cost that a firm must make to stay in the market. Think of it as the normal wages of a self-employed florist. It is, in essence a cost. Any firm that is making zero accounting profit, is doing it wrong, and would shut down. 6

But economic profit is the difference between revenue and all costs, including accounting profit. Therefore when zero profits are mentioned, it is actually economic profits that are zero this occurs in perfectly competitive markets. A business can still make an accounting profit (which is what profit tends to mean in the common vernacular), whilst making zero economic profits. So when the author claims that free marketeers are engaging in buffet neoclassicism when they demand less taxes but refuse to accept the fact that it also mandates zero profits, he is wrong. Editor, whilst the purpose of this letter was to correct the fallacies with regard to neoclassical economics, I must also go to bat for the field of econometrics essentially the quantitative study of real life, using mathematical models. Satterlee claims that any variable chosen to predict an outcome is arbitrary, because there are an infinite number of variables in the world that could be chosen, and therefore it is a field that consists entirely of the ad hoc endeavours of econometricians. Yet the author is ignorant of the fact that regression and other techniques of statistical analysis actually allow you to determine how important a variable is. For example, say I collect data on the correlation (remembering regression cannot imply causation) on the amount people spend at the Apple Store. Regression could tell me that 85% of this amount is be explained by a persons income. When asked, as Satterlee does, why I chose this variable, I would respond because I thought it was the most important. This is either confirmed or denied by the statistical analysis. I, like good econometricians, do not wish to ignore the limitations of regression analysis; but this isnt one. Economics is not rocket science. A small error in definition results in fundamental mistakes the author has based his criticisms around these fundamental mistakes, and therefore devalued what is an otherwise interesting discussion of Marxian economics. D. Cole.

PRESIDENTS REPORT AND UPDATE

Welcome to the UWA Politics Club and State Magazine for 2012, in what is shaping up to be one of the biggest years ever. To new members, thanks for jumping on board with us; and for returning members, thanks again for your continuing support. My name is Angus Duncan and Im the President of the UWA Politics Club. Id firstly just like to get some thank yous out of the way. A very big thank you needs to go to past President Zach Cole. For the two years that Zach led the Politics Club he managed to form it into the successful and established club it is today. I hope, Zach, that I can continue the success of the club and make it bigger than ever. A thank you must also go out to the committee of 2011 for their efforts. However, do not despair at the loss of our past leaders. We have a whole new committee for 2012. Id like to welcome the following: Policy Vice-President: Tim Sondalini Social V-P: Nicole Mumford Treasurer: Duke Cole Secretary: Mitchell Goff Publications Officer: Myles Parish Sponsorship Officer: Aaron Tuckey OCMs: George Brown, Josh Dolgoy, Cassandre Hubert, Stephen Puttick Fresher Rep: ???? Are you a fresher? Want to get involved in the committee? Do you have a passion for politics? Were looking for one female and one male UWA student to join our committee. If you fit this criterion then send me an email (20360974@student.uwa.edu.au). The cut-off date for nominations is the Friday of Week 2 (Friday the 9 March) at mid-day. The elections will be held in week 3. Go on! Do it! So, what can you expect from the club this year? Well first of all, you can expect lots of sexiness! Secondly, you can find up-to-date news on our STATE Facebook page, bringing all political issues at a student, local, state, federal and international level from a huge range of sources straight to you. Thirdly, you can

expect great events that are not only enjoyable and informative, but touch on hard hitting, robust and contentious political issues. Previous events included debates, Q&As with guest speakers - politicians, diplomats, scientists and lobbyists - Mock Parliaments, round table discussions and thats just for starters. Fourthly, STATE Magazine will continue to publish academic, well-informed and independent articles from various political perspectives on various political topics. I hope these articles make you stop and think about your position. On the social front you can expect anything from lawn bowls to cocktail parties and pub parties. Well also begin new weekly meetings where well discuss the weeks events in politics. All events not only allow you to meet your fellow lovers of politics, but will also allow you to interact with politics lecturers and special guests. In Week 2 on Thursday 8 March at 4:00pm, we have our 2012 club launch at the Harold Holt Sun-Drown-er at Cottesloe Beach. Come down for a BBQ, a swim and a drink, all provided by the club. Meet and greet new likeminded students, committee members, lecturers and long- time members who can give a cheeky hint of how to succeed at uni. We look forward to seeing you down there - just look for the banner! Our next event after that in week 5 is the much anticipated debate on the topic, Has Capitalism Failed Us? We are lucky enough to have a group coming over from Macquarie University to debate our own UWA students. This is going to be one heated debate, so be sure to bring a bag of ice to cool off! Well have more details soon. For now if you have any issues, any problems, ideas or anything to contribute send me an email. I hope you enjoy the first issue of STATE for 2012, welcome to UWA and remember, make politics sexy!!! Angus Duncan President 7

COVER STORY

ON THE SPOT WITH H.E. THE HON. KIM BEAZLEY, AC

Angus Duncan, President of the Politics Club ver the break, STATE was lucky enough to sit down to interview His Excellency The Hon. Kim Beazley AC, Australias Ambassador to the United States of America, to discuss Australias relationship with the USA. Ambassador Beazley was elected to the Federal Parliament in 1980 and represented the electorates of Swan (1980-96) and Brand (1996-2007). Ambassador Beazley was a Minister in the Hawke and Keating Labor Governments (1983-96) holding, at various times, the portfolios of Defence, Finance, Transport and Communications, Employment Education and Training, Aviation, and Special Minister of State. He was Deputy Prime Minister (1995- 96) and Leader of the Australian Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition (1996-01 and 2005-06). Ambassador Beazley served on parliamentary committees, including the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. After his retirement from politics in 2007, Ambassador Beazley was appointed Winthrop Professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Western Australia. In July 2008 he was appointed Chancellor of the Australian National University, a position he held until December 2009. Ambassador Beazley took up his appointment as Ambassador to the United States of America in February 2010. In 2009, Ambassador Beazley was awarded the Companion of the Order of Australia for service to the Parliament of Australia through

contributions to the development of government policies in relation to defence and international relations, and as an advocate for Indigenous people, and to the community. Ambassador Beazley was born in Perth. He completed a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts at the University of Western Australia. He was awarded the Rhodes Scholarship for Western Australia in 1973 and completed a Master of Philosophy at Oxford University. He is married to Susanna Annus and has three daughters. If you would like a copy of the recording please send us an email at statemagazine.uwa@gmail.com. Now here, without further ado, is our interview. STATE: Ambassador Kim Beazley, let me begin by thanking you for taking the time to be interviewed by State Magazine. We really appreciate you taking the time and its a great honour to be talking to you. KB: Happy to do it. STATE: Let me start off by asking Ambassador - youve had the opportunity to meet and work alongside President Obama, what do you consider some of the defining characteristics of his personality? KB: Well look, Im not sure Im in the business of giving free character analysis of the US President, but when you say work alongside, hes way above my pay grade. I do however turn up whenever he is meeting with our Prime Minister or when he is visiting Australia. Look, I think the thing that most is intriguing about him from our point of view is his very strong focus on our region, on Asia. This is not unusual in an American President, but unusual its so pronounced, he understands it well. I noted that for example that when he visited Indonesia he spoke briefly in Bahasa and I was talking to the wife of the Indonesian Ambassador, and asked her what it was like and she said it was effortless, so quite clearly when he spent time in Indonesia in his youth he picked up a pretty good understanding of

interest in Australia; one of the stats I love to language and culture. So if you are looking for something that is different or in this President quote from public opinion polling back to American interlockers here is that pure from perhaps previous Presidents and if youre research asking the question in the United looking for some of the origins of his interest in our region and his interest in us, I think you States in the last presidential election are you interested in it got an 83 % response can probably incorporate that childhood expressing interest. When they asked the same experience within it. question about the US presidential election in STATE: Clearly his speaking abilities were Australia they got an 84% response. Australians are very internationally minded in demonstrated the other day in his State of the global comparison and probably, in fact, more Union, and Id just like to take one of his quotes where he said America remains the one internationally minded than many Americans, the average Australian. So Obama has been a, indispensable nation in world affairs and as any US President is a source of considerable long as Im President I intend to keep it that way. From the Australian Governments interest in Australia, but Obama especially so. perspective, how realistic is Obamas belief? STATE: So a key part of his trip down under KB: Well, the statement one indispensible was the announcement made by President Obama and Prime Minister Gillard that there is nation; that is the assumption that if you are to be an American military base in Darwin that going to get a problem settled, if youre going to get a solution, if youre going to ensure the will hold up to 2500 marines. What do you think this military base means for the good health of the global economy you cant Australian-US operate without reference to the Australians are very internationally alliance? participation of the minded...probably more KB: Well it is part United States. We found that out when internationally minded than many of, it, we have a very wide ranging we were in office Americans... military and when we were setting intelligence collaboration with the United up APEC, and we initially I guess forgot to States expressed through joint facilities, joint invite the United States to be a member, that exercises, acquisition of first class equipment, was a situation that was corrected very quickly, close engagements with various agencies of but it was quite clear you couldnt function an national security in the United States, it is a Asian Pacific community without the active very strong relationship and emphasising participation of the United States. So that American troops in Australia as well as statement that he makes, as one indispensible Australians in the United States or at lease nation, I guess, of all nations on the globe that particularly Australian naval vessels in the particular description most applies to the American waters around Hawaii. This has been United States. going on for years and years, this puts a little bit more structure into what has been as I said STATE: President Obamas resent trip to an ongoing feature of the alliance relationship Australia, it was fair enough to say, was and from the American point of view sends an perceived as an attempt to bolster their important signal into the region of its presence in Asia Pacific. From a diplomatic continuing engagement, and from our point of point of view how do you think Australia view its a good thing that the Americans sent perceived President Obamas trip? that signal into the region. KB: Well, I think that given the views that I internationally STATE: So do you think saw expressed along the roadways in Canberra theres a new strategic rationale behind this and in Darwin and the general sentiment or military base? Could it be the rise of China or views that were possible to discern, he was almost an acknowledgement that theyve had very welcomed, he is a very popular figure in Australia. His election produced a great deal of 9

end of the Cold War and this is really, these their eye off the ball by focusing on the Middle East for too long? statements are really a recognition of that. STATE: Well, just going back to the State of the KB: Probably not the rise of China, the US is playing here a very sophisticated hand. They Union, President Obama said, Anyone who tells you that America is declined or that our know very well that encouraging the peaceful influence has waned doesnt know what they rise of China, is a thing in which we all have an are talking about. So you dont think then that interest but they also have a very acute awareness of the importance to everybodys this statement would have been made in reference to the rise of China? prosperity of recognising the rules based international system both on trade matters and on settlement of disputes, and what the KB: Look, I think arguments about American decline reverberate all over the place increasing American involvement in the region particularly since the global financial crisis, so is that there is to be an environment in which it is possible that these issues, and there are lots of commentators have alleged that this is occurring. The simple fact of the matter is that many disagreements particularly on maritime it is more sensible to see global developments boundaries in the South East Asian region these will be settled by peaceful means and by not in terms of American decline but the rise of a multiplicity of states that have come into negotiation and not by, to coin a phrase, fait la wealth in an international political system, that guerre [make war]. So we have an interest that, that is the case, most of encourages them to do so largely created by the the countries in the United States in the regional approval all the aftermath of World War countries in the region II. So the United States is in fact have an interest not declining its in that and the US is economy continues to prepared to engage in a grow, it remains pretty way that holds the ring, well the most inventive thats the first point Id society on earth, it make. The second is that re-creates the United States also, With US Ambassador to Australia, Jeffrey constantly itself, its population, and Obama is emphatic Bleich, behind PM Julia Gillard and US wealth and military about it too, is a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton capacity in technological legitimate Pacific power terms at least in the latter case is expanding by virtue of geography. It is a Pacific state but it also acknowledges that there are a lot of geographically and therefore legitimately other countries doing very well and doing engaged in the Pacifics regional affairs. Now, increasingly well and some growing very fast the difference I suppose, in the speeches that and not just China theres India, theres Brazil are being made recently from speeches in the theres in our region smaller powers Indonesia, past is not so much that it doesnt incorporate Vietnam. The global growth is in everybodys an American engagement in the Asia Pacific interests, so I think it is a reasonable thing for region - plenty of American Presidents have the President to say in the light of all that the asserted that over the years - it is the level of US isnt declining the US is like us all dealing priority being assigned to it of the indication of with a system that is much more diverse. the Obama administration both in the Presidents statements and in Secretary of State STATE: So you dont think in any way that the Clintons is that in this century this is the US new military base could damage Australias priority area. So hitherto you would have said multi-million dollar trading partnership with well, certainly during the Cold War their focal China then? point of engagement tended to be Europe, the Middle East and as far as the Asia Pacific was KB: No, China doesnt trade with us because concerned the far north of the region. The tier we have an alliance, or dont have an alliance for politics of the globe has shifted since the 10

with the United States. China trades with us because it is in Chinas interest to do so. When China ceases to have an interest in doing it, the trade would stop at that point. But you could not foresee that sort of circumstance whilst ever Chinas growth is like it is and Australian raw materials are necessary for it. STATE: Australia, then, from what youve said is not now stuck in an awkward situation between our security alliance with America and the new found partnership we have with China? KB: I think we would only be in an awkward position if we were silly, this is not, is not a difficult set of relationships to sustain the economic relationship we have with China, the good diplomatic relationship we have with China is eminently sustainable as is our relationship with the United States. The international economic picture is interesting too in regard to China; of course were looking in traded goods and to a lesser degree services. In the case of the United States youre looking at the focal point of a massive amount of Australian investment and vice versa American investment in Australia, absolutely dwarfs the investment big picture elsewhere in the region, and on the globe. There are many various ways of doing statistics but the sort of mutual investments at least of one set that came across recently between Australia and the US is about 800 billion, between Australia and China its about 90 and the biggest new investors, that is new FDIs in Australia last year was American and Australian investment in the United States despite the global financial crisis and the US economys difficulties has increased every year throughout that global financial crisis. We are massive investors in the US and they in us much more so than we in China. STATE: Then the new base, the new military base doesnt make Australia any more of a military or terrorist target? KB: No. No, no it doesnt, its an emphasis in the region and the region is very happy about it.

Ive got to say it emphasises to countries in the region that relationship is important and continuing but more importantly that the United States is actively engaging in the region and its a good symbol for that purpose. I dont think in all honesty anybody is fearful of a base with a brigade of marines in it that they are there for exercise purposes, honing their skills and by the way given that the Australian Defence Forces are about to get two large amphibious ships very useful training in maritime operations for the Australian Army. STATE: Sorry to stick on the military base; if we look at it from another perspective some academics might argue that were moving into a period where soft power is much more important than hard military might. How do you think Australia would respond to such an idea? KB: Soft power is always important and because American soft power is pretty potent, potent in the region and potent in our country. If youre defining soft power in the context of your cultural outreach the American cultural outreach is pretty strong. STATE: If we could just move on to Americas withdrawal from Iraq. How is that largely being perceived in America? KB: Well, I think he came, President Obama came into office promising it and he is perceived as having delivered on a promise. There are critics of it that would have liked to argue that it would have been useful for America to move heaven and earth to sustain a military engagement in Iraq, but there is no appetite for that here and there certainly wasnt sufficient appetite in Iraq for them to be prepared to adopt positions that were encouraging to the Americans. STATE: So does the withdrawal now allow America to focus on Asia Pacific? 11

KB: I think the United States will be engaged in aspect or period interests you the most and the Middle East for a long time. Assigning why? priority to the Asia Pacific doesnt mean that the United States is not engaged in other parts KB: Look, I am interested in military history of the globe - its a global power. Just as when and it is an amateurs interest, not a priority was assigned Europe, Middle East and professional one. I am interested in the North Asia it didnt mean that the United States American Civil War - its interesting both had no interest or engagement in South East because of the principles over which it was Asia or East Asia more generally, so its not an fought, it was a war thought to preserve a either/or in that sense but as the United States Union which was seen as a Union of definite restructures its defence forces, as they reduce worth to the global community and the expenditure on some elements of it. Its quite example it set and it also was to right a horrific clear that theyre making a considerable effort historical wrong. So in terms of the politics of to sustain those parts of the force structure the American Civil War it engages political that are most significant in our region but values at many different levels and it was an theyre not insignificant in the Middle East as interesting fight but more as an Australian well. because, the result of the Civil War is important to us, because the United States emerged intact STATE: So if we just take a step back; what do at the end of it the US have both the physical you think is the new defining feature of this capacity and moral authority which it would new era in American-Australian relations? not have had if it was a divided nation to play a really substantial role in our region in the KB: Well, I think the defining feature is that twentieth century. That was crucial in terms of because of the changed geo-political focus of resisting the advances of the Japanese Empire the globe away from the at the time of World War old Cold War focal Weve moved geo-politically to II. So you can if you want points of, you know, to and if you take a what the forefront...reflected in Europe, North Asia and if approach to history American interest in us. the Middle East to the you can draw a pretty Asia Pacific transforms Australia from being direct line between the outcome of the essentially in a global backwater to being if you American Civil War and our survival in World like a pretty significant power in the southern War II. Well Im interested in that, Im also tier of that focal point, of the new focal point of interested in Australian military history the new global political system, so from being particularly in the context of the First and geo-politically a bit of a backwater weve Second World Wars, again from a perspective moved geo-politically to the forefront and I of what guaranteed our survival and what think that change in our status is somewhat lessons we need to learn from. reflected in American interest in us. STATE: And just finally youve been a Rhodes STATE: Just turning to domestic politics with Scholar from UWA; Defence Minister; your long successful career at a Federal level. Opposition Leader, narrowly and What was your reaction to images of our Prime disappointingly missed out on becoming Prime Minister being dragged into her car after being Minister and now youve gone on to become attacked by protestors on Australia Day? Ambassador to the US. What has been your favourite portfolio? KB: Im a diplomat, dont ask me to comment on politics. KB: Well look Im enjoying my job at this moment its terrific, its very interesting and STATE: Id just like to end the interview by very worthwhile. I have to say of all the jobs asking about you. Now I understand you have Ive had the two that I liked most was the job a passion for military history. So out of all the leading the Labor Party and the job as Defence conflicts of the ages and their leaders what Minister, so I dont think those were particularly terrifically huge secrets but, I 12

certainly thought that my political career was at its most worthwhile while doing those two things. STATE: Well Ambassador, thank you so much for taking the time to speak to us today, if youre ever back in Perth the Politics Club would love to have you at an event to speak. So thank you very much. KB: I will certainly do that.

13

GUILD POLITICS

WHY REPRESENTATION NEEDS TO CHANGE

Guild President Matthew McKenzie explains the changes to NUS funding. think representation on campus needs to drastically change. Thats why I ran for Guild President. Its very easy to sit in the Guild Presidents prison office and get swamped down by day to day work (trust me, I know), but the Guild needs to be re- energized, and its efforts need to be reallocated towards the issues that really matter for everyday students. I think this is the same for the National Union of Students. Its a nice idea, but the organisation is largely irrelevant. One of the great triumphs for NUS in recent history was the implementation of the Student Services and Amenities Fee. This genius piece of legislation made it compulsory for you to pay a fee to the university, the revenue of which is then mostly passed on to the Guild. Guild membership is free, but youll still be paying for the services whether you use them or not. I cant say that there has been a tsunami of students running to my office in support of this change. So I cant understand why NUS would support it. And Ive never been able to understand it. Half of you cant even afford to buy your textbooks and yet these guys want to force you to give all this money to the Guild. The reason is that NUS isnt a National Union of Students, its a National Union of Student Unions. I have no issue with that. If all the Student Union Presidents want to get together and find ways to make their organizations stronger, then more power to them, but dont tell me that youre trying to represent students generally.

SSAF was a pretty clear transfer of wealth from students to their student unions. Even assuming I can spend your money as well as you can, youre still no better off from the whole experience, particularly because so much goes to the universitys administration charge. Speaking of charges, Im given to understand our affiliation charge to NUS is going to triple to $150 000 in 2012. This puzzles me, given that NUSs total affiliation revenue last year was around $600 000. Ill comment on the spending later, but for now, Im going to ask you to visualize how much money that is. Imagine an elephant. And then imagine $150 000 next to it. See? Its a lot. Organizations like the Australian Law Students Association, Australian Medical Students Association and Australian Dental Students Association charge very little in comparison and achieve a lot more. If I decided we pay just UWAs fair share, reducing our payment to be in line with the proportion of students here compared to everywhere else (around $15,000 on last years figures) it is quite possible that NUS would sue us for the remainder. Because weve given them money we look like we think we have a contract, etc, so we get sued for the rest. Great result if you work for the Guilds law firm, not so much for everyone else. On my second day in office, I went into my first finance and planning meeting and I nearly had a heart attack when I saw the Guild had a projected cash deficit of $1.8 million this year. Weve cut that by $500 000, although more still needs to be done. I had to compare how NUS used the money against how I could use the money. New Courses is coming to UWA, and this is the biggest change to education at UWA ever. Spending on educational representation this year should be done locally, to faculty societies,

14

the people that actually sit in the meetings and represent students to the decision makers. NUS is running a national campaign on fees for post-graduate places, which is very kind of them and relevant to New Courses, but given they spent 56k in total last year on all of their campaigns combined, which is less than the fees they received from UWA alone, Im guessing they wont miss our money all that much. While Im discussing the NUS budget, $10k is allocated to mobile phone allowances for the students who are elected as office bearers. I guess I find this whole thing frustrating. If student organisations are badly funded, and many are, why is so much money being thrown down a hole? Why is NUS talking about climate change at its conferences instead of trying to change the fact that so many of you are living below the poverty line? NUS is just something young politicians do to put on their resumes. The people who go dont represent the average student, they represent ideologies and they take whatever opportunity they can to discuss the issues they personally are passionate about despite it not being relevant to anyone else. Both sides of politics are guilty of misbehaving at NUS. If youre not sure of what NUS does, or youre not 100% convinced that you want your money spent on sending people to rallies, then you wont want us wasting all that money on affiliation to NUS. Thats why we cut the funding for NUS affiliation. Matthew McKenzie is the President of the 2012 UWA Student Guild.

NATIONAL STUDENT UNIONISM: WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE WE?

Cameron Barnes asks the oft-repeated question. n the December 20 budget meeting the UWA Student Guild Executive proposed that the guild no longer pay its affiliation fee to the National Union of Students. There were two arguments presented. The de-affiliation argument claimed that the National Union was a waste of time and money. The send a message argument posited that not contributing financially would put us in a stronger bargaining position to make improvements to the organisation. The Guild Council eventually decided, by 10 votes to 9, in favour of refusing to pay an affiliation fee. The UWA Student Guild exists fundamentally to protect and promote the interests of students. This requires the guild to develop a strong education policy platform which exists on a number of levels. At the highest level, education policy includes issues like HECS fees, youth allowance and the level of commonwealth support for UWAs new postgraduate course structure. By refusing to engage with the National Union of Students (NUS) our Guild cripples its ability to represent UWA students on a national level and damages the lobbying strength of NUS. What we are left with is a guild where education issues are relegated to a sub-council and abandoned by Guild Executive as a priority. NB: It is worth noting in this article that Guild Council is not parliament, and I do not consider myself a member of the opposition. Matt McKenzie is a good guy and we regularly work together to achieve progress. On this particular issue, councillors from all four election tickets supported my amendment to fund NUS. What the National Union of Students does: 15

The national union of students runs campaigns and makes submission to the highest levels of government. They meet with the Commonwealth Minister for Tertiary Education and contribute to decision making bodies such as the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. NUS has a whole raft of successes, which include substantial improvements to youth allowance, $950 to students in the stimulus package and billions of dollars in commonwealth support for new courses and masters programs. NUS has prompted Senate inquiries to be launched and is a major player in the development of higher education policy. What it costs us to affiliate and what that fee allows UWA to do: UWA pays a fee of $2.50 per student. This allows us to send delegates to NUS National conference, gives us access to NUS campaigns and means that NUS is mandated to represent UWA students on campus-based issues such as commonwealth funding for New Courses. The paradox of a student union dismissing the need for a union: The deaffiliation argument claims that NUS is a waste of time and money. This argument focuses on the large amount of money spent on wages. However, just like any union or industry lobby group, resources spent on staff are what achieve wins for members. Full time professional staff research education issues and draft submissions to government, while elected staff work full time to lobby ministers and run campaigns. The insincerity of claiming we can improve an organisation by ditching it: The send a message argument is either insincere or sadly misinformed. If we refuse to contribute towards NUS, we will no longer have a say in trying to improve the organisation and ensure that UWA students interests are taken into account. Further, the organisations ability to achieve wins for students will be weakened by having a G8 member pull out. As the title of this article suggests, the education direction of the guild is now entirely uncertain. 16

Cameron Barnes is a member of the 2012 UWA Student Guild Education Council.

THE TIME FOR INDEPENDENT CATERING HAS ARRIVED

Libertys Ben Watson discusses election- winning policy. he Guild is finally taking action on what has been one of the most contentious and talked about electoral issues at UWA for the past three years. Each side has made their case and the voters have heard all the lines before. In the 2011 Guild elections, the voting public of UWA made a clear choice they voted overwhelmingly for Liberty candidates. It has been no secret that Liberty, since its origin, has been the party committed to fighting for independent food on campus. The party and the policy are inextricably linked in the minds of UWA students. So, when voters decided that it was time for a new Guild, they gave a clear mandate to the new Liberty Guild to enact its signature policy.

Students had grown tired of promises to improve Guild-run catering and hollow policies of aesthetic refurbishment. The voters of UWA have expressed a desire for a Guild that is willing to explore alternative options, one that is willing to try new ways to bring them higher quality services. Independent food is just thata new way of thinking about providing higher quality food to students at better prices. Voters have sent a clear message that the status quo in regards to food was not good enough. There is a clear electoral mandate for the enactment of independent food.

Put simply, independent food is a win for students. The introduction of independent food vendors breaks Guild caterings monopoly over food and drink on campus. By forcing Guild catering to compete with any new business, then new businesses to compete with one another for students custom, students will find businesses (including Guild catering) striving to provide the best value for money. Greater choices, and better quality food and drink will be the result. Guild catering has been struggling to provide the quality of food that students want at prices they are willing to pay, forcing many to seek alternatives off campus, such as at Broadway. By driving students off campus to eat, the Guild is loosing an opportunity to raise money that could be put back into student services. Far from the tired argument of the proponents of the status quo that the money from Guild catering goes directly back into students services, more money will be made available for things such as club and FacSoc grants, student welfare, and educational advocacy once independent food is introduced. Take for example the REFresh bar, which in 2011 made a $17 000 profit. Early projections of how much the Guild could make off a rental agreement for this area are more than triple the profit from the current outlet. That means more money that the Guild can spend on providing services to members. Imagine if this is replicated across campus not only will students have more food and drink options, and enhanced competition driving down prices, the students will also benefit from the Guilds strengthened financial position, enabling them to contribute more to student services across the board. It has also been highlighted that there are not enough casual employment opportunities for students on campus. The introduction of independent food will change this. Currently, Guild Catering only employs less than five students across its outlets. More food outlets looking for staff will provide students with many more employment options. This is a factor that can be negotiated into any rental contracts between the Guild and new outlets. For many years now, the monopoly of Guild Catering over food and drink on campus has

not served students well. They have been forced to pay higher prices than they should and have had limited choice. This is the case when Guild Catering has no competitive necessity to do better for students. Introducing independent food and drink on campus will provide Guild members with the high quality they deserve: they will have more good quality food and drink options at lower prices. In addition to better food and drink, the Guild will be in a better financial position due to rental agreements and more able to fund clubs and societies and welfare initiatives. I have no doubt that the trial approved by Guild Council on the 1st of February will be a success, and its success will only make the benefits of independent food harder to ignore for its detractors. Independent food will allow the Guild to not only nourish students stomachs, but nourish the rest of their needs at university, including welfare and social needs. In the end, isnt that what the Guild is here for? Independent food is the change that UWA students voted for, and it is the change that they want to see. Ben Watson is the 2012 UWA Student Guild Vice- President and Environment Officer.

STAR AND PRIVATE CATERING

STARs Laura Smith gives her view on the new catering proposal. t the January session of Guild Council, the Liberty administration proposed a dot point business case which would allow a handpicked private caterer to take over services previously provided by the Guild. Both the proposal itself and the way in which Liberty have handled the matter deserve skepticism and scrutiny from all students. Lets start by getting one thing straight: opposition to this half-baked plan isnt merely about blocking any attempt by Liberty to introduce privatised catering into Guild spaces. It has been well established across Australia that the selling off of student services results in negative effects on the viability of student-run guilds. Privatising these services drastically 17

affects the ability of such organizations to provide advocacy and club-support services that are necessary for a vibrant campus culture, such as the one at UWA. It should be acknowledged that this was a major election plank of the current Liberty administration. That is no excuse, however, for the actions of Liberty in trying to push this proposal through without allowing for proper scrutiny by the supreme governing body of the Guild: the Guild Council. In Januarys meeting it became clear that steps to implement the privatisation of the Refresh Bar had already been taken without consultation with the Council. Rather, Liberty President Matthew McKenzie appears to have taken it upon himself to essentially secure a mates rates deal with local business Rocketfuel. We should ask ourselves: why is it okay for McKenzie to play into the hands of the first company that approaches the Guild with a business proposal? Surely a project that seeks to bring capitalism to campus catering should allow for a tender process to select the preferred operator? How do we know that students are getting the best deal and value for their money? The question arises: what is the Liberty administrations real concern? Ensuring the provision of exceptional support and services to students? Or is it simply trying to make their stamp on campus, rushing through an election promise by playing into the hands of a local company? One would say that it appears Liberty have taken the easiest option, meeting with the requests of Rocketfuel, rather than first and foremost considering the needs and welfare of students. After all McKenzie likes to regularly remind us that we are here for the students, right? All of this comes before we even consider the feasibility of the business case that was put before Guild Council in January. The document, which proposes that this Council approve the business case for the independent catering trial, is only three pages in length, composed mainly of dot points and in my opinion lacks the necessary components of a viable business trial. Perhaps the most striking flaw of the business case is its failure to identify Key Performance Indicators to provide a 18

benchmark for success and failure. This crucial element appears to have been completely overlooked by the Liberty administration in their rushed attempts to secure an election promise. It did not, however, go unnoticed by STARs councillors. When asked by STAR at the January Council meeting what the purpose of a trial would be and how it would be determined whether such a trial was a successful one, McKenzie simply replied that it would be up to the individual councillor to decide. I do not believe that it is okay for the viability of a business to be determined subjectively. Rather, whether a trial has been successful should be evaluated empirically and include consideration of profits from sales, cost of goods sold, productivity, rental profit, student satisfaction and whether the outlet contributes to the atmosphere and ethos of the UWA Guild. One thing is for sure: if the Liberty administration wishes to undertake such a significant change to Guild catering, then they must ensure they do so correctly and in accordance with sound business modelling. STAR will be seeking to ensure that Liberty are kept accountable for their actions and that their promise of transparency is adhered to throughout their administration. Laura Smith is a Guild Councillor for STAR in 2012.

STATE POLITICS

TAKING BIKIES FOR A RIDE

Pearl Lim takes issue with WA anti-association laws. ttorney-General Christian Porter recently stated in Parliament, I am fully aware that every step of this legislation is likely to be litigated, and possibly some parts subject to constitutional challenge. He was referring to the Control of Criminal Organisations 2011 (WA), notable for its anti- association measures. The Bill follows in the failed footsteps of analogous legislation in NSW and SA, which were struck down by the High Court due to issues with the constitutional validity. The Bill, which was introduced on the last sitting day of 2011 and is due to be debated first thing when Parliament resumes, was introduced by Attorney-General Christian Porter on the last sitting day of 2011 and has essentially two main arms of operation.

Attorney-General Christian Porter The first allows for the declaration of an organisation as a criminal organisation by a designated authority on the basis that members of the organisation associate for the purpose of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity and represent a risk to public safety and order. This may be so even if the organisation exists for other purposes and if members have never actually been convicted of any crimes. Secondly, once an organisation has been declared, the Police Commissioner or Crime and Corruption Commissioner can apply for control orders on persons who are either

members, former members or somehow affiliated with the organisation. Control orders prohibit affected persons from associating with other controlled persons, and can impose several other restrictions, such as prohibiting persons from carrying on specified types of employment, entering or being near specified places (even if they have a legal or equitable right to be there), or accessing or using one or more specified forms of communication or technology. Furthermore, the entirety of Part 6 is dedicated to setting out how information about declarations and control orders including the names and addresses of controlled persons must be made publicly available online. A mandatory imprisonment scheme is introduced in Part 4 of the Bill, with controlled persons caught associating liable for two years imprisonment for the first offence, and five years for the second. The Bill also criminalises the financing of and recruitment of members to declared organisations. This short summary of the Bills basic operation is enough to hint at serious problems and questions regarding freedoms, judicial independence, fairness, and a whole host of sentencing issues that cannot be explored briefly. What perhaps confirms the troubling nature of this bill is the presence of other radical measures, such as the stipulation that all proceedings under the Bill are civil in nature and thus operate on the balance of probabilities despite the presence of criminal punishments. Equally worrying is the removal of normal rules of evidence when meting out declarations for organisations as is the endowing of the designated authority with of all the powers of a Royal Commission. Like the New South Wales and South Australian legislation before it, the Bill threatens to erode long-established principles of public and criminal law by severely restricting individual liberty based on the possibility of some future conduct, without the determination of criminal guilt. The government is unapologetic for the rights that the Bill infringes. 19

FEDERAL POLITICS

FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY

Stephen Puttick and an Australian love affair with the monarchy. I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die. Prime Minister Robert Menzies erhaps no truer words have been spoken to describe Australias relationship to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II than these ones. Australias longest-serving Prime Minister made these famous remarks in 1954; during the first state visit of our newly- crowned monarch. As an Australian I do not think I could be a more loyal or passionate supporter of one of, if not the, greatest institutions in the World. I am obsessed with an undemocratic, elitist and secretive family that reside nearly 9,000 miles away in London. The history of this great nation is rooted in ties to the House of Windsor and a method of political organisation that has and continues to guarantee stability, representation and accountability in Australian politics. Last October Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh toured Australia for the 16th time in a reign that has spanned some 60 years; the 16th tour by a Queen whom has served for nearly two-thirds of Australias history. This is no small feat, yet for some peculiar reason, some individuals in this country wish to see ties to the Commonwealth cut and the monarchy replaced with a shady, untested, problematic, unrepresentative, non-symbolic political model- that of a republic. In this short paper, I will outline why the people who advocate such a shift are intellectually bankrupt and their arguments for such an unnecessary change simply incorrect. The monarchy is undemocratic and the Australian Head of State should be appointed or elected so as to better represent the people of Australia. The premises pertaining to this line of thinking are incorrect on many levels. The Crown is a hereditary position that currently passes along a male-preference- cognatic-primogeniture basis - male siblings

take preference over their sisters and succession passes down a bloodline until it is exhausted, before retracing to the senior generation. Laws concerning succession to the British Throne are codified in the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701) and the Acts of Union (1707). By their very nature, laws of succession cannot be changed unless there is unanimous consent from all Commonwealth Realms. Bi-partisan support exists in Australia to end male-preference and restrictions regarding the accession to the throne by a Catholic (codified

I do but love her, till I die. in the 1689 and 1701 statutes), and since the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, support can now be found across the Commonwealth. There is not space here to outline the arguments for and against these changes, however, I personally do not support them - not least due to the inevitable fracturing of the inheritance of the Royal family's private capital and the Crown (e.g. the oldest son would inherit, along with other interests, the estates of Sandringham and Balmoral, whilst

20

the eldest child [if a daughter] would inherit the Crown and the Crown Estate). The British monarch is represented in Australia at the federal level by the Governor-General, currently Her Excellency Quentin Bryce AC, and at a state level by each respective Governor. The Governor-General or a Governor can be any Australian (Anglo-Saxon, Aboriginal or otherwise) and it is their task to represent the monarchy in Australia. Realistically, and simply put, the Governor-General is our Head of State. This is where I first take issue with the republic argument- a constitutional monarchy does not restrict any Australian from holding what is the highest political office in this nation. This is a fact, no matter how one may attempt to misconstrue it. Historically, Governors and Governor-Generals have been apolitical and, outside of a small number of conventionally ceremonial duties (most importantly the issuing of Royal Assent), have not been an active nor public part of Australian politics. This is not a bad thing, whilst anyone who takes issue with this should take issue with the appointers and appointed, rather than the model. The Governor-General could be far more active in Australian public life- be it taking on a greater number of ceremonial duties or adding to political discourses- they simply choose not to be. I personally support no change to the roles of the Governor-General and I see the apolitical nature of the Office as but one of the strengths of constitutional monarchy. Furthermore, shifting to the republican model does not necessarily mean the Head of State would somehow become more active and more political. The minimalist model has been, and seemingly remains the fashion- this model simply renames the Governor-General the President, disregards over 200 years of history and does not necessitate a more active role for our Head of State. It will also cost around one billion dollars. Shame. Furthermore, why should (in this instance and in both the constitutional- monarchy and republican models) the Head of State be more active? Outside of ceremonial duties, what should the Governor-General do? This is a discussion that republicans themselves cannot decide on and an issue more fully discussed below.

No other system of government provides for such a stable, representative and accountable politic as that of constitutional monarchy. At least in the British sense, the roots of constitutional monarchy can be found in the Glorious Revolution of 1688- since this time, no British monarch has held absolute power with Parliament acting as the true site of law- making. Due to the assured nature of succession, and the apolitical nature of the Head of States office, responsibility of government is focused in the federal and state parliaments- democratic institutions. Anyone whom attempts to argue that a constitutional monarchy is unrepresentative is misguided Law-making in Australia is representative, at least when the mandates to take policy to law are honoured post-election. Or to not make law- whatever the case may be. The beauty of constitutional monarchy is that it focuses legislative and ultimately executive powers in the hands of elected officials and does not allow for inefficient competition between two or more representative bodies- la the US Presidency versus the US Congress. As abovementioned, any Australian can become Governor-General. The Federal Executive has historically used the appointment as a means with which to recognise lifelong and distinguished service to Australian public or professional life. Heads of State elected in any way- by the people, by a joint-sitting of Parliament etcetera- will result in a political conflict between the legislative and executive- a process that carries with it a plethora of problems and one incompatible with Australian norms and values. I mentioned above that the Governor-General currently gives Royal Assent to all Bills that have passed through the legislative process. Royal Assent, for those unaware, must be given before a bill can become law. By convention, Royal Assent has always been signed. However, any republic-model does not rely on, nor would it necessarily embody, this important convention. The election of, or voting in, of the Head of State would surely lead to the political manifestation of the Office. Our political system cannot depend upon, or be governed by, two seats of power. The system in the United States goes some way in illustrating my point. The Constitution of the United States organises a political system entirely different to that of 21

Australias- a system that relies upon different social and cultural values. Advocates for a move to a republic are commonly cited as explaining that any change to the Australian Constitution would not change how the very political system of this country operates; this is untrue, most importantly with regards to the sidelining of vital constitutional conventions and the creation of another representative, and thus powerful, arm of government. The monarchy serves as a reminder to us all of the important family and cultural values that underpin our society. As individuals and groups in Australia push for the instituting of certain, socially-progressive principles; the legalising of gay marriage serving as an obvious example, it is more important than ever to have the conservative values that bond society together embodied in our Constitution and communities more generally. The House of Windsor, despite certain difficulties in recent times, embodies the family norms that some people wish to undermine. Tony Blair, then Prime minister of the United Kingdom, said of the Queen Mother on her death [that] she symbolised Britains decency and courage... admired by all people... revered within our borders and beyond. Though not speaking of Queen Elizabeth II, Blairs words are still fitting- Her Majesty the Queen, as demonstrated at CHOGM last October, unites communities around the World and represents several hundreds of years of Western history. An appointed or elected President, sitting for a finite term, does not embody such worthwhile values; nor would he or she bring a unique and fitting celebrity that adds so much to Australian life. Whilst many would disagree on this point, I would urge you all to watch footage from the Queens visit last October- whilst not all of the hundreds of thousands whom came to Perth did so in support of Her Majesty, the visit provided an opportunity for certain noisy, angry individuals from the deleterious left, and those with some narcissistic sense of misfortune, to air their problems and be heard, if only for one day. Even here it seems, in the face of socialism, Her Majesty advances the democratic process. Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy and a member of the 22

Commonwealth. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and her successors should remain as our rightful Head of State. Any shift to a republic poses serious questions as to the constitutional stability of this country. The constitutional monarchy as a method of political organisation has, and continues, to serve this country well- it is the best model for the politic. Further, our ties to Britain through the Commonwealth and the monarchy recognise the most important parts of our national history. Civilisation came to this country in 1788, and I for one am proud of this. In 1788, George III was King- our Queens third-great-grandfather- though the monarchy has seen a great deal of change, not last during the reign of this Queen, it is still a most important part of Australias political framework and discourse. In this, the year of Her Majestys Diamond Jubilee, all Australians must come together to celebrate Australia, the Commonwealth and our sovereign; and may the unbroken genealogical line of monarchy last another 2,000 years. God Save the Queen!

BLOOD RED RISING

David Csolle from the other side of the republic divide. ecently, I had the opportunity to watch Valhalla Rising, a blood peppered, dirt-caked and wind lashed movie about a mute character, One-eye. Complementing the physical lack of his tongue appendage, One- eye is incomplete by human standards, in a spiritual, soul-driven way. He is more beast than man; a slave who is transported from one desolate location to another by a rope around his neck, removed only to fight other vagabonds for payment of coins, tainted with blood. One-eye eventually escapes his horrid lifestyle and the gravity of the story is pulled into a direction where the protagonist undergoes a transformation. This change is apparent by his final act of sacrifice. Unlike the brutal Cyclops-like being he was, One-eye gives his life for a boy who

accompanied him on his journey from the beginning. Before this incident, One-eye and the Boy are led by a Christian group of crusaders, who take them to a strange land for the purposes of converting them and in particular, cleansing One-eyes abraded soul, while constantly being both in awe and terrified of this beastly man who becomes someone else a man with a mind that is clear and true. The clear message in this atmospheric and moving movie is one of change. No longer taking life, One-eye makes the decision to save the Boys life by sacrificing himself when he is surrounded by a hostile group of inhabitants to the strange land. He changes and becomes greater than his twisted past. What does this movie have to do with the issue of whether Australia should become a Republic or remain under the Commonwealth of the British Monarchy and Indigenous representation? Let me show you... For the purposes of my argument, it should be made clear that One-eye will serve as a symbolic representation of Australia and for its past, present and future. He was once barbaric, untamed. So too was this land. One-eye renounced his ways of the sword and the axe and becomes a person who embraced the sanctity of human life. Likewise, Australia has moved on from her inhumane convict past to become a nation that is diverse of nationalities and which intersects our daily lives, making relationships richer in colour and in spirit. One has to keep in mind that Australia was already a place of prosperity before white man settled. Like One-eyes own soul, I argue that there an essential truth to this soul of land which should be embraced and therefore, no matter how tangled its past was, straight lines can be drawn out and sense can be made. Therefore, the main crux of my argument is on the need for change. I aim to break down this dilemma to its simplest components, to be as concise as possible to avoid arguments that shade this issue, such as the changes to the constitution that is needed or the exuberant costs needed to change monarchy to republic. After all, these arguments are merely road- blocks to the real issue. When the clock strikes the hour, the element that is left in this

monarchist versus republican debate is simple. Thus, the decision as to whether Australia should remain under the Commonwealth or become a Republic is about CHANGE whether to change our views or not to change them. Simple. Why is this so important? Changing the constitution to allow Australia to become a republic also calls for a change to the flag. Just like the tattoos present on One-eyes once barbaric body, a new flag brings out a new symbolism for our future. In doing this, I argue it is necessary to include Indigenous heritage on the flag. I argue for an all encompassing flag, not a separate us and them piece of object filled by colour I vouch for a flag that combines both. Throw in-group and out-group theory, us and them out the window with the bath water. So why is it important to recognise Indigenous Peoples within our flag and with our larger historical heritage? Firstly, opponents of this will argue in zeal that no ethnic or racial minority should be given privilege over another, as this is unfair and confounds the principles of multiculturalism. Let me remind you that archaeological confirms that presence of Indigenous Peoples in this land for over 40,000 years. A long time this is, indeed. No great cities were built. No pyramids to be found. Very little evidence of past civilisation can be found. However, sublime paintings that decorate the desert and inland landscape remain. The nature of Indigenous artwork dots the Australian landscape in the same way that the actual artwork is composed of such intricate dots. Spirits of Indigenous ancestors call out from the land in the form of the wind and the churning of the waves. Therefore, remember this, fellow readers - and I hope it will make an impression. The same blood and bone as yours walked this land of ours and survived for eons. Ancient Indigenous footprints walked on the scorched sand of the beaches and deserts of this land we call Australia and not Terra Nullius. Families were raised in this land, not under a flag, but under a harsh sun that refused to provide respite. And yet they survived. Food and water were sparse. 23

And yet they still survived. Calling for recognition of Indigenous heritage onto a new flag would be a better representation of our country, the spirit of this country than the Union Jack or any cross. Remember, this land was occupied for thousands of years before white man ever set foot. And yet Indigenous People survived and prospered. But hold on! How can Australia move into the future and change by accepting its past, its true authentic past, grounded by thousands of years of the same culture? Australia was occupied and claimed by British rule in 1788 by Captain Cook and his motley crew of merry man. One must keep in mind that not all were merry. Convicts were brought ashore and put to hard labour. Those early settlers and convicts were wrought out of English desire to expand their horizons, to conquer and pierce their flag into foreign soil. I ask you this; why are we so intent on keeping this imperialistic heritage? Outdated is an appropriate word. I sternly argue what sort of history is this to be proud of? A Monarch-lead nation that exiles its own unwanted citizens and plants them in a dry and arid land, not full of milk and honey, but of such perceived harshness, no name other than Terra Nullius could warrant its magnificent physical and spiritual milieu. A heritage that does not recognise the true legacy of this land seems illogical and unnatural. Tradition, a word that is closely held in the hearts of Monarch contemporaries defines a large component of their justification that Australian should remain under this blue blood link. Keep in mind that this link to the United Kingdom is neither a politically active one it is merely a symbolic representation of the past, a past in which the soil of this country was toiled by the blood and sweat of convicts. Sure, one can be proud of our convict past, but they were not free men, all were forced to work and the lines of their faces became more prominent as the sun beat down. Even the rich landowners who arrived had to suffer and build their estates. This artificial environment is in stark contrast to the natural way of life embodied by the Indigenous Peoples, whose 24

presence stretches thousands of years, where an intimate relationship with nature was developed peacefully. So I ask you, reader, to abandon the image of John Kerr and his top-hat. It should be kept in the distance. Instead, I ask you to replace this with Gough Whitlam and remember the poignant image of him as he drained the earth from his hands into those of an elder as a sign of recognition of Indigenous heritage. This should be remembered. In my mind, this is more valuable and more important than any crown and robe the Monarch has to offer. This is the most logical and natural way Australia should have been founded upon, but man decided to raise the flag in the name of a foreign family. In the end, if Australia is to become a Republic, I foresee it could be a bloody battle. Words will be spat from the mouths of politicians on a spectrum of acceptance to disgust; just as the swords clashed and blood was spilt in Valhalla Rising. Like any battle that is fought, there will be a winner. I hope that for the future of Australia, this fight will not be in the name of the Queen. Let us embrace a change from a past, that although considered necessary in an establishment sense circa 1788, no longer applies today and no longer represents the people of Australia today, in all of her diversity. Let us be remembered just like One-eye was, changing from beast to man. Let us get rid of the chains that bind us to a monarchist past.

A HAIRY PROPOSAL
Nicole Mumford on bad-hair marriage. othing is sacred anymore. For generations we have seen the gradual the breakdown of the traditional values of society: the phenomenon of the moral decay of the 21st century. Not only have the youth of today rejected our Christian heritage, but also further flip the proverbial bird in the face of the ethics of our foremothers and fathers. This blatant disrespect is primarily evinced by todays youth towards the sanctity of the traditional institutions, particularly that of marriage.

Equal marriage rights have become a topic of much discussion as our society progresses. The argument that all unions should be recognised as equal in the eyes of God and the law is fundamentally flawed, as is the misguided belief that there is no barrier to love, be it age, race or sexuality. Marriage should be a privilege preserved only for people who adhere to the Bibles teachings, uphold the expectations of our ancestors and can reproduce naturally. Civil unions or similar ceremonies to marriage (under an alternate name) have arisen to facilitate those who cannot, for whatever reason, satisfy these conditions, allowing them to legitimise their monogamous status.

Flocks of seagulls may yet be declared illegal. There is, however, little more abhorrent than the principle of affording equal marriage rights to couples with bowl hair cuts as their non- bowl hair cut counterparts. The bowl hair cut, or even its hip brother the undercut, is explicitly a sin as highlighted in Leviticus 19:27 (You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads). Awarding equal rights to those living in sin with their bowl cuts should not be tolerated, as this effective endorses their wrongdoings. The marriage rights of those with bowl cuts should also be revoked on the grounds of s5(1) of The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004, as it reads: Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. As there is no explicit mention of the union of those with bowl cuts, they should be excluded from those eligible to marry. Besides, to amend such an Act again would erode the foundations

of our society and would be too radical, stressful and time consuming for todays principled and dedicated public servants. Bowl hair cut couples also fail to perform the marriage function of producing offspring. The sexual appeal of such a haircut makes Julia Gillard look like Christina Hendricks in comparison, and hence no child could be conceived naturally, if you catch my drift (and pardon my crudity). Love alone cannot justify equal marriage rights if this love cannot produce spawn that will maintain our high rates of population increase. Whilst it can be argued that processes such as IVF and child adoption can address this issue, it would be reckless to raise a child in an environment whereby they lack the presence and influence of a non-bowl cut parent. With few statistics on bowl cut families, one can only speculate on the detrimental effect this would have on a childs social development. Further, children from such families may be subject to teasing in the schoolyard, as their familial situation may differ from that of their colleagues. People with bowl hair cuts have not been given any marriage rights beyond those of people without bowl cuts, however, by even allowing people with bowl hair cuts to enjoy equal marriage rights demeans the sanctity of the traditional concept of marriage. A curly issue such as this cannot be brushed aside it must be straightened out before society as we know it, with our traditional values, is hair today and gone tomorrow.

FIXING THE BROKEN PROCESS OF DOUBLE DISSOLUTIONS

Ben Ritchie on section 57 of the Australian Constitution. t the next election the public will be asked to vote in a referendum to recognise Indigenous people in the Constitution. It seems astonishing that this is the question that the Government is hoping will move the nation forward rather than an

25

attempt to fix the backward political system used to govern this nation. While there are countless ways of improving the political process, I will focus on just one: reforming the double dissolution process. Since the adoption of proportional voting, it has been incredibly rare for a government to possess a Senate majority. The balance of power is usually held by minor parties and/or independents. While minor parties pursue genuine policy outcomes, independents have a habit of using their vote to extort billions of dollars for their respective states, the textbook example being the former Tasmanian Senator Brian Harradine. The people or groups who possess the numbers to help the government pass legislation over the objections of the opposition thus have an enormous amount of negotiating power, because the only alternative for the government is to pass the legislation through a double dissolution election. The process for a double dissolution election is that the House of Representatives must pass the bill, the Senate must reject the bill, the House must pass it again at least three months later and the Senate must once again reject the bill. If this happens, the Governor General can dissolve both houses immediately and after a fresh election both houses will vote in a double dissolution. The logical reason that the process has been so rarely invoked is that people hate elections. The classic example is the GST. Howard scraped through in 1998 with less than 50% of the two party preferred vote but couldnt pass the legislation without winning over the Democrats or the independents. Instead of returning to the polls again, Howard decided to make serious concessions to the Democrats and the legislation was passed. Since victory was in doubt, a double dissolution was never an option. Unsurprisingly there have only been six double dissolution elections since Federation, the latest being in 1987. Even in this example, the Hawke government simply used the process to go to the polls early. The Australia Card legislation over which the election was supposedly fought was quickly abandoned afterwards. 26

The root of the problem is that a double dissolution requires the government to bear the risk because of the oppositions political grandstanding. The solution then is to force the risk onto the opposition. Instead of the Governor General having the right to dissolve parliament, they should have the right to pass the bill OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE SENATE. However to balance this, the Senate should then have a period, before the law is enacted, in which to demand that the Governor General dissolve both houses of parliament. What this does is shift responsibility for the election from the government to the opposition. This means that the opposition will bear the onus of justifying the action which is potentially a huge electoral liability. This will force the reason for the dissolution to become a central campaign issue because the opposition has to convince the public that they were right to do so. It is easy to overstate the extent to which government power will increase. The procedure is still long and, if the government is not clearly ahead in opinion polls, it could easily be too risky to allow the opposition the power to call an election. The steps necessary to pass legislation this way will give the media and the public ample time to examine the bills, so if the government maintains its popularity then the matter is either unimportant enough to justify an election or the public is likely to be on their side. The results become clearer when each actor is analysed individually. The Government will only pass legislation over the objection of the Senate if they believe that either no election will be called or they will win any election i.e. they get to continue in power. The Opposition will only choose to force an election if they believe they will win but can only force an election with the support of the neutrals. It is more difficult to predict the actions of independents and minor parties. Independents would effectively compromise their independence by helping the Opposition call an election but the implications of this will change depending on other factors which will depend on the scenario.

Minor parties are more likely to be hesitant as they will suffer the downside of seeming to cause the election while the upside, seeming to stand up for their cause, is all diverted towards the more interesting story of the head to head clash between the two leaders. If Beazley had forced a double dissolution about the Workchoices Laws (pretending that the Senate was controlled by the Greens) then the Greens would bear resentment for causing the election without being seen as the defenders of workers rights, as the opposition wears the same mantle and is naturally more interesting and so gets all the attention, which leads to the minor partys support base being stolen by the opposition. However minor parties do have motivations to force an election. Minor parties aim for representation in the Senate for the sole purpose of influencing political outcomes. If they consistently refuse to take the risk of forcing an election, then the government will be aware that they are bluffing and will have no reason to make concessions.

from giving them an opportunity to call it in the first place. They will make sufficient concessions so that either the minor party is satisfied or the Government is not sufficiently extreme enough for an election to be justified. The possibility of passing legislation this way will give the government much needed bargaining power in negotiating. The current double dissolution process is little more than a bluff, and everyone knows it. By changing the rules, the game changes and the entire nation will no longer be held to ransom according to the whims and sectional interests of an independent senator from Tasmania with a mandate of 50,000 votes.

The only s57 joint sitting in Australias history. This means that minor parties, if the issue is important enough and the government is on the wrong side, minor parties will allow an election to be called. Because the issue is important enough, the opposition can use public sentiment about the issue to counter the negative of seeming to have caused the election. This means that they can win the election, which would prevent the Government

27

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

TWO-AND-A-HALF STATE SOLUTION

Aaron Tuckey on Israel vs Palestine.

ecognising the bizarre fascination amongst students with the Israel- Palestine conflict, I thought it to be very apt, even a pseudo initiation ceremony, to write my first article on this topic. However, my analysis is from a different perspective. Academics, commentators and even the public often fixate upon day to day issues or short term plans. Despite losing a degree of accuracy, I believe that hypothetical situations are necessary for future planning and have been neglected in this situation. I recognise the struggle for peace deserves attention, but later developments are not mutually exclusive in the process. To make this prediction a few things must be assumed. Firstly, states like Iran will not nuke any of the actors involved; nor will sea levels rise faster than predicted, losing Gaza to the Mediterranean; nor any other ridiculously bizarre game-changer. Secondly, there is a settlement reached. It is in the best interests of all if a separate Palestinian state is created. This has been the master plan from the start and continues to be so, only a few want something different. The Palestinians will not obtain Jerusalem and land swaps will accommodate new Israeli settlements, though nothing will be radically different from the 1967 borders. Considering that it is statistically impossible for an enduring status quo, I argue a settlement will be reached and sooner than many people think. But what happens next? Israel remains unaltered whilst a new state is built somewhat

around it. This would make the Gaza Strip an exclave of the West Bank. What I argue is that an exclave with comparable population and desire for influential power will struggle to maintain its unity, especially when the exclave is not an addition to a pre-existing state; it holds no accessible sea route, or its land access is challenged diplomatically. This is because, in any geographically split country, one state must dominate: there is only ever one central authority. Exclaves (unless a banana republic- like outpost) often already exhibit independent state qualities and, if unjustifiably subjugated, would further question their unity. To predict the future it always helps to reflect upon the past. India and Pakistan provide a pertinent example. After independence from the United Kingdom led to the fracturing of the subcontinent, modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh thought it would be a workable idea to remain integrated. United in opposition against the Hindu majority state, they fought several wars and had ongoing border skirmishes with India. However, as remnants of the Partition and war of 1947 subsided, internal dynamics set the stage. With a camaraderie based on defiance against India, yet fractured by the tyranny of distance, an unbalanced power dynamic developed, unjustified under a democratic system that had comparable population in each state. As military power and budgetary expenditure was further concentrated in West Pakistan, East Pakistan sought independence twenty-four years after Pakistans creation, and a civil war ensued. Whilst 1500 kilometres of separation is a huge difference in comparison to 35km, it is unwise to suggest Palestine does not exhibit elements of a scaled model of former Pakistan, as it similarly has roughly equal populations in each state. It has already expressed greater power dynamic issues by electing bitter rival parties in each state, and will be created through opposition to Israel. Furthermore, the diminished tyranny of distance makes little difference, considering the number of checkpoints any traveller currently has to go through to traverse Israel, unless the struggling Palestinian economy can muster up the resources to build the worlds longest road tunnel.

28

Former Pakistan is not the only, or best, example of a non contiguous state, but it is highly relevant considering East Pakistans non compliance with the inequitable power dynamic split countries must adopt (which the Gaza Strip already shows signs of doing). Alaska in the USA, Kaliningrad Oblast in Russia and Cabinda in Angola exhibit similar power dynamics. However, this is not an issue for these states, as they lack the ambition to dominate the rest of the nation and they do not possess the relative population to support any such move, or fight for independence if their wishes arent fulfilled. All these states and their exclaves have an easily accessible sea route and are not obstructed overland by as serious tensions (if any) with bordering states, as Palestine would. Contrasting furthermore, Alaska was a purchased addition to a pre- existing state, semi-colonised by the USA; Kaliningrad Oblast was a Soviet Outpost as the Eastern Bloc disintegrated, in no way resembling the simultaneous nature in which Pakistan was (and Palestine will be) created alongside their exclaves. Rather, in these other examples, the states involved knew where the prior concentration of power lay and understood their deference to it from the beginning. Closer to the point of interest and at the height of Pan-Arab Nationalism is the United Arab Republic. Exploiting Pan-Arab sentiment to quash Syrian communist movements, a proposition to merge with Egypt to create the UAR in 1958 was accepted by Egyptian President, Nasser. Despite the less equal population in each state, Egypt and Syria, doubtlessly did not want to sacrifice power being pre-established states. As Nasser prioritised his agenda and Syrian officials found it harder to reach higher positions in public office, the state fell apart in 1961. Considering that this republic rose and fell at a high point in Anti-Israel sentiment and Pan- Arab nationalism, it would have stood no chance in times of peace. Recalling that the West Bank elected a party that participates in peace negotiations with Israel and recognises its neighbours right to exist (unlike the ruling party in the Gaza Strip) I believe that there is hope for the West Bank,

and even a possible chance that it will gain independence separately to the Gaza Strip. Those who know this regions history would understand an additional cleavage between these united territories is embedded in their first twenty years of existence, when they were separately occupied by Egypt (Gaza Strip) and Jordan (West Bank). If a united Palestine is created, for all the above reasons, I believe it will be unstable and fracture at some point in its early history. This logic would imply that a three state solution might result. However, taking into account Gazas economic and political circumstances, I think a two-and-a-half state solution may be more likely. Gaza is now an aid dependent economy, with double the unemployment rate and poverty levels of the West Bank (which are still high). Its denser population (that is better suited to a service industry economy) with minimal arable land makes it more difficult to rebuild from the bottom up. On the other hand, the West Bank has witnessed increasing tourism in places like Bethlehem and Jericho, greater foreign investment and does not suffer from the same overpopulation. Meanwhile, the Gazan government continues to invest heavily in military expenditure to fight a war with Israel that it can never win, rather than investing in solving its internal crises. Hamas also rejects a proposed deal with Israel to stop firing rockets into Israel and recognise its right to exist, in return for lifting the economically-crippling blockade on the strip. Due to Gazas (naturally) unfortunate economic conditions compounded by its ongoing political choices, an independent Gaza would perhaps exhibit the traits of a failed state. However, recognising the legitimacy problems such a government faces, would it not just be easier to shift the blame onto Israel who, under the Hamas leadership, is perceived to have caused all the problems when it came into existence in May 1948? How would the government, the public and, most importantly, militia groups react if this is the verdict within Gaza? Is this any different to the current situation in Gaza? For these reasons I dont see the situation in Gaza improving. My hypothetical situation is this: either a united Palestine or solely the West Bank gains independence. In either situation the West 29

Bank and Gaza Strip are separate entities in the early years of this proposed scenario. As an effect, Gaza remains a failed state that is either propped up by the UN, Egypt or Israel, and possibly continues its hostile agenda. This is the potential two-and-a-half state solution. I believe there is much hope for the West Bank but not for a united Palestine and certainly not for Gaza. Stability for the region is not just a peace agreement with Israel, and it is naive to think anything other than this, bearing in mind the internal disputes we have already witnessed in the Palestinian territories. Just like unity in opposition is stronger than unity in government, unity in war is greater than unity in peace.

WHY THE EUROZONE MUST DIE

George Brown on Europes uncertain future.

doctor would probably call it a near- total organ failure if it was a person; a mechanic would call it a total write-off if it was a car. An economist would say its a very serious debt-crisis and the world economy is in big trouble, while anyone in an accounting, corporate law or especially a receivership firm would be dancing around screaming jackpot. For the everyday layman, meanwhile, its simply stuck up a certain very famous and much-travelled creek without a paddle. A politician, however, would just ignore you and continue perfecting that special skill that all politicians seem to possess namely talking a lot, but not actually saying anything. A European politician would be even more likely 30

to do this, as they all seem to be in a complete state of denial over the current viability of the Eurozone and arguably, the European Union at large. This article is not advocating for or against a particular position the Eurozone must die because there does not exist any way to save it. To put it as bluntly as possible, the Eurozone is dead; the leaders just havent realised it yet. The advocating portion of this article is insofar as it discusses the wider European Union, which has been deeply flawed from its very beginning and is likewise desperately in need of reform. It is, however, important to note that the results of Europes economic integration have been quite positive on balance. For example, one of the precursors to the EU, the European Economic Community (EEC), did much to increase economic and legal standardisation of its member-states particularly in the 1970s and 1980s. This vastly improved the compatibility and overall productive potential of Western Europe. The EU has also achieved one of its explicit and most important goals via this economic integration. Specifically, any one country in Europe is now so integrated and trade-reliant on some or all of the other member-states that another world war (at least one started between the various European states) has become extremely unlikely, if not inconceivable. During the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), many governments around the world had been forced to prevent collapses of many industries seen as critical to the economy, particularly many financial sector entities like banks that had become too big to fail (ie: if they went bankrupt, it would cause a severe banking crisis and probably a deep recession). However, this cost a huge amount of money for governments and global debt markets became concerned about the abilities of some governments to repay the debts that they owed and so started to ask for higher, often significantly higher, interest rates on money loaned to governments. Similar to how the sub- prime mortgage credit default swaps had suddenly stopped being seen as the ultra-safe investment they were thought to be, triggering the GFC, government debt suddenly stopped

being automatically considered safe and so to invest in what had become a riskier asset, more incentives were needed, meaning more profit from the investment meaning higher interest rates. In Europe, this was especially problematic for the so-called PIIGS countries Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, as they already had significant levels of government debt even before the crisis and the GFC had resulted in several instances with sovereign debt levels blowing out to in excess of 100% of GDP. As Greece, as the initial problem, could not afford to pay the higher interest rates, there only options were either to default or to ask the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the rest of the EU for a bailout package to help pay for their debts. This then spread to the other at-risk economies in the PIIGS group via a phenomenon known as contagion markets get worried about one economy with high debt levels, which causes said economy to get into strife, then the markets start to get similarly worried about other economies in the same region that seem to have similarly high debt levels and other economic indicators; in this case, low or negative GDP growth and high unemployment rates. When you think about Greece and its historical track record with debt though, it is a wonder how a country with such a train wreck of a sovereign debt track record managed to get accepted to the European Union in the first place, considering the supposedly stringent acceptance criteria (which are discussed in more depth later). Since its independence in 1821, Greece has been classified as in default for at least 50% of the time, split into a total of six separate periods lasting as long as several decades. Therefore, based on historical precedent, there is no reason to think they wont default at some time in the future, even if by some miracle they dont default during the current debt crisis an outcome that is getting less and less likely by the day. However, there is a strong argument for why Greece getting kicked out of the Eurozone would actually be to their benefit. The continuing will they, wont they uncertainty about whether they will stay in the Euro is arguably even more damaging to the Greek economy, as very few people would want to loan any money to them, and those

who did would charge exorbitantly high interest rates that would cripple the economy anyway. As was pointed out in a recent issue of The Economist though, Greece is not really the issue right now. Greece is small the real problem is Italy; as the worlds seventh largest economy and Europes fourth-largest, any debt default would be a massive disaster for the EU and, by extension, the world. Simply stopping contagion from spreading is insufficient though; what they need to do is deal with the structural issues that underlie the problem and caused the massive debt in the first place you cant just implement a short-term solution for a long-term problem. The long-term problem as far as the Eurozone is concerned, is that it does not fit the necessary criteria to be an optimal currency zone, which is the technical term in economics for a region that has a single currency. To be categorised as an optimal currency zone, a region must first have economic synchronicity; in other words, there cannot be something like a serious two-speed economy in different parts of the zone. The Eurozone clearly fails on this point. Looking at the unemployment rate, the average is 10.4%. However, this disguises the large deviation from the mean in the figures of various individual member-states; when we look at these it is easy to see a clear divide between north-west and south/Mediterranean. While countries like Austria and Germany sit comfortably on 4.1% and 5.5% unemployment respectively, countries like Spain, Greece and (the exception to the north-south rule) Ireland languish on 22.9%, 19.2% and 14.5%. The second criteria is that workers and resources need to have a high degree of mobility between countries. This is plainly not the case, or simple human behaviour would dictate that people would migrate to where there are more jobs available. While part of this is related to cultural problems, such as with different languages, a very significant barrier has been the insufficiently flexible labour laws in many of these countries that tend to discriminate against foreign workers, especially if they are not familiar with the language. The last criteria is that financial capital, especially government revenue, must be easily transferable. The EU is not a fiscal union, but rather a currency or monetary union. This means that surpluses in 31

one country cant be transferred to another country and used there to offset an economic downturn in that country, thus partially contributing to the multi-speed economy situation. While some moves are being made to rectify this, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkels proposal of a fiscal compact, there is still the substantial hurdle that this would require a new treaty, something which needs unanimous agreement from all 27 members of the EU. However, even if this is implemented (which is doubtful, considering the overall lack of political willpower), it will do very little to help avert the current crisis. Furthermore, similar to the arguments used to support state rights in systems based on federalism, local is almost always better for efficient allocation of resources, as more local-based governments are closer to the people and thus better able to respond to a unique areas unique needs. This would mean that a closer fiscal compact like Ms Merkel is suggesting might actually not be a better thing for the Eurozone and European Union. The reasons for why the Eurozone did not have a real chance for long-term viability at its inception, and is certainly not viable anymore (at least in its current form, and especially in the current economic climate) are primarily economic in nature, which is to be expected when the Eurozone is the principle economic aspect of the European Union. However, there are also numerous other reasons for why the present structures and institutions of the greater European Union, while not impairing the EUs basic functions, are undesirable and even potentially destructive. For example, to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights a precursor to the European Union specific Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) the United Kingdom was compelled to introduce a statutory bill of rights in 1998, known as the Human Rights Act (1998). Little or no recognition was given to the many existing protections of human rights within the UKs political and legal system, such as extensive precedents within British common law, nor were any provisions made for the inherent incompatibilities between the British common law and continental Civil law systems. 32

Additionally, the need to comply with the Treaty of Lisbon, ratified in 2009, which finally gave the Charter proper legal force, is problematic because it is an international treaty that significantly degrades parliamentary sovereignty by overruling the sovereign will of the people, which is in many respects the central principle of the United Kingdoms entire political and legal system. Without getting into a complex discussion over the nature of electoral mandates, it could be claimed that it is a case of an international/supra-national treaty essentially overruling the supposedly sovereign will of the people. Furthermore, UK courts cannot render invalid laws that are incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights; they can only issue so-called declarations of incompatibility and request that the law be amended until it is compatible. However, the fact that these requests are never ignored implicitly undermines parliamentary sovereignty in the UK to a very substantial degree. While the system of checks and balances on the various arms of government that we have in Australia works very well, these were developed to facilitate the specific needs of the colonies. The similarity with the UK is that they likewise developed a system to suit their unique needs; however these needs and the institutions adapted to serve them are often incompatible with those of other member- states of the EU (such as not having a written constitution with higher law status, and instead relying principally on conventions). This is the same with other issues, not just in the UK but elsewhere too, where making special arrangements would have been even more problematic and infeasible, as it would have undermined the generalities necessary for successful broad application of the regulations (as everyone would therefore want similarly special treatment). This is one of the key areas in which the CFREU again fails utterly. In A, B and C v. Ireland (2010) ECHR 2032, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that there was no explicit legal right to abortion contained in the CFREU. On several occasions, the ECHR has been criticised for using its supra-national status to impose a sort of federal law on the CFREU signatories, but they

did not attempt to do so in this case. This is both a good and a bad thing good because if they had tried to impose it on all member- states, it would have been disastrous for womens rights, but bad because the resultant lack of consistency and uniformity illustrates why having a supra-national court superior to all these incompatible legal systems is very problematic. Meanwhile, to return to the main issue of disastrous exemptions leading to economic collapse, if, for example, Greece had been allowed to be exempt from the rules pertaining to government deficit and debt limitations, other countries such as Ireland, Portugal and Spain ie: all of the ones currently in a bit of strife over their debt likely would have demanded similar treatment. As a result of this, either the Euro would have been adversely affected or all the other countries would have had to pick up the slack to offset those ones that were exempt. This would result in a continuing spiral of fewer and fewer countries having the rules apply to them until there were just a small number left shouldering the whole burden of keeping the Euro afloat. The Stability and Growth Pact is designed to, oddly enough, maintain the stability and growth of the Eurozone, specifically by capping government expenditure at a maximum of 3% of GDP allowable annual budget deficit and a maximum public debt of 60% of GDP. Supposedly, any violators of these provisions would face very substantial semi-automatic fines. However, there is the problem that these provisions for sanctioning are applied in nothing like a consistent fashion, with France and Germany particularly being prolific offenders. This talk of exemptions and the lack of sanctions all ties together because the lack of provisions for dealing with governments that breached the debt and deficit rules, Greece had no incentive for not breaching the rules. However, because they were still technically not allowed to do it on paper, Greece had to essentially cook the books for their public debt in what looked suspiciously like a gigantic Ponzi scheme. Now, with the European debt crisis, we see the same situation developing that was discussed with regards to rule

exemptions, where a small number of rich member states have to prop up and bail out the rest of the Eurozone in order to prevent the currency from collapsing, either in value or just collapsing, period. To summarise, when there are no real or consistent penalties for breaking the rules, it does not matter if there are exemptions for some or not, as there will be an inevitable moral hazard situation where some members will not follow the rules, get into trouble and eventually have to go begging to the others for help to get out of it. There is a further moral hazard issue in that there was a specific provision in the Maastricht Treaty (Article 125) that specifies that there will be no bail-outs for countries that do get themselves into strife with their sovereign debt. This clause was designed precisely to prevent such a moral hazard situation from occurring. However, this has very obviously been breached several times over the past couple of years, thus eliminating the effectiveness of this clause in any future similar scenario. This provides another reason for why the European Union desperately needs to be scrapped and started over. In order to save the Euro, the only option would be to kick out those countries that are haemorrhaging under their debt burdens. However, while this would be somewhat helpful to these struggling countries, allowing their currencies to depreciate and providing a boost to their export revenues, the symbolic/implicit vote of no confidence in their economies would quite possibly cause such a panic in bond markets that it would guarantee a default. As Ronald Reagan once said, centralised power is the greatest threat to liberty. This could easily be paraphrased to concern the national sovereignty of member-states within the European Union. Like many supra-national bodies (eg: the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank), the European Union is highly undemocratic, despite there being an actual European Parliament with elections every five years. This lack of democracy is a result of an extensive and pervasive culture of plutocracy and overly complex bureaucratic structure that has led to the rise of a new type of civil servant the so-called Eurocrats. The network of 33

Eurocrats has drawn a lot of criticism over the years for a variety of reasons, but especially their fondness for over-regulation and inefficient regulatory legislation, as well as for their apparent ability to wield far too much influence over senior policy-makers. The undemocratic nature of the European Union is best evidenced in the fiasco regarding Greeces referendum on the bailout package conditions in November 2011. The reasoning was that an issue of such importance as a bailout package that would impose significant hardship on the Greek people should require a proper democratic mandate. As such, the then Prime Minister, George Papandreou, announced a referendum was going to be held, prompting an uproar from Brussels and other EU leaders (especially Germanys Angela Merkel and Frances Nicholas Sarkozy), as they knew based on the existing evidence of opposition to the Papandreou governments already in force austerity measures that a referendum had a significant risk of failing. As a result of the pressure being exerted by larger EU member-states, Papandreou was forced to stand down as PM, the referendum was cancelled and the Greek Parliament chose a new PM. While this last bit is entirely consistent with parliamentary democracy, if Papandreou hadnt been forced by the powers- that-be in the EU to step down in the first place, a new PM wouldnt have been necessary. Additionally, his replacement was someone who could definitely be classed as a Eurocrat- insider and therefore someone who would be perhaps less assertive in resisting demands from Brussels. It is perfectly legitimate in a parliamentary democracy that the Prime Minister should stand down if he loses confidence of the parliamentary majority. However, the sidelining of the Greek peoples democratic rights certainly is not congruent with the principles of democracy. To put it more succinctly, it should be their choice to screw up their own country if they want to, and if the other countries in the Eurozone dont like it, then kick Greece out of the Eurozone. A similar situation occurred with Silvio Berlusconi in Italy very soon after when market bond rates for Italys debt suddenly jumped to record highs. It is ironic that rather than one of the myriad scandals surrounding 34

his infamous bunga-bunga parties and various criminal charges for corruption and sex with underage girls, it was actually his losing the confidence of his own Parliament on an important regulatory vote due to rising interest rates for Italys sovereign debt that finally brought him down. However, this can still be seen as somewhat undemocratic, as he was forced out by fluctuations in an unelected market making politicians skittish and was again done at the urging of the Brussels bureaucracy. Prior to the Treaty of Lisbon abolishing them, the European Union was based on three key pillars economic integration, a common foreign and security policy, and judicial cooperation. Although they were abolished by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, these broad principles still form the key underlying tenants of greater European integration. However, there is a big problem with the common foreign policy aspect they can never seem to agree on one! For example, only some member-states helped overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, and even fewer were in the coalition of the willing that helped invade Iraq in the 2nd Gulf War in 2003. Closer to the present day, the EUs involvement in the no-fly zone intervention in Libya was the done entirely by UK, France and Italy, while practically everyone else in Europe either condemned it or just tried to ignore it. Additionally, although technically the Schengen zone was considered to be under the economic integration pillar, it is seemingly starting to fracture, and the reason for this has been mainly foreign in origin, specifically, there was the dispute between Italy and France over Libyan refugees being allowed through Italian customs without especially rigorous border controls being enforced, prompting France to close its borders with Italy temporarily. Germany also tried something similar around the same time, but their motives were more clearly economic in nature, as they were deliberately trying to restrict their borders to foreign workers at the urging of domestic trade unions advocating workforce protectionism, especially trying to restrict those from Eastern Europe who tended to be willing to work for

less and thus potentially undercut German workers on wages. In spite all these criticisms, the Eurozone and the European Union as a wider body are doing the best they can, given the institutional constraints they need to work within. However, that is not an endorsement, but rather an indictment. A couple of months ago, an issue of The Economist was headlined How to save the euro. My simple response to this dont. Likewise, dont save the European Union, at least not in its current form. If this is as good as the Eurozone and the European Union can be given their current structures, they should be scrapped entirely and reformulated anew.

TUNNEL BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

Francis McLoughlin discusses tensions twixt France and Turkey.

he French Senate, after some rumination, has passed a bill that will imprison any French citizen who denies that the Armenian genocide of 1915 took place. On top of serving one year behind bars, genocide- deniers will find themselves saddled with a 45,000 fine and the shame of a criminal record. In Turkey, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoans ruling AKP government glowered at the effrontery of the very prospect of this bill being signed into French law, and has already imposed economic, political and military sanctions on the Fifth Republic after expelling the French ambassador for a brief time. Mr. Erdoan is known for his chauvinistic policies and public outbursts; there is simply no way of telling how long the animosity between France and Turkey would have lasted even if the bill had been discarded.

When pushed, the official line in Turkey has been to insist that the said genocide was actually some sort of lop-sided civil war, whereby the Christian Armenians were guilty of rising up against their Turkish neighbours in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, talk of such things has been discouraged in the first place with the believable threat of harsh repercussions and imprisonment under Turkeys notorious law 301 (the anti-Turkishness law). While Turkey has long repressed discussion about the Armenian genocide, or even the mere assertion that the event happened, France now wishes to repress any denial of it. One would like to think that the Jeffersonian point should really have become elementary to any thinking person by now: If the right of all citizens to free expression is withdrawn from anyone, especially someone whose views are deemed to be appalling or unpopular (an Armenian genocide-denier, for instance), then it would be weakened in general. It seems that the French Senate is having some trouble coming to terms with this, however. Franco-Turkish relations have frayed over the years since President Nicolas Sarkozy spearheaded the opposition to Turkeys admittance into the European Union, declaring that Europe ended in the Bosphorus and denying the received wisdom that Turkey has historically been the bridge between the East and the West. But Turkey also damaged its chances of entering the EU in April 2009 when a NATO meeting was called to decide who would be their next spokesmen. When Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, was set to win, Turkey vetoed the vote on the grounds that Mr. Rasmussen had been unwilling (not to mention legally unable) to censor Jyllands Posten, a Danish newspaper, when it published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in 2006. After receiving phone calls from numerous heads of Islamic Republics, the AKP deemed Mr. Rasmussens refusal to censor his countrys free press unacceptable, and thus, on this as on many other occasions, Turkey threw the principle of free expression to the wind. While the AKP is known for its populist Islamist policies, the current President of the 35

Fifth Republic may be seen to have engaged in the same all-to-easy pandering for quick votes in the wake of Frances upcoming Presidential elections on 22 April and 6 May. Since Mr. Sarkozy will face strong competition from the Socialist candidate Franois Hollande and the centrist Democratic Movements Franois Bayrou amid a thickening atmosphere of anti- sarkozysme, and with Marine Le Pens far-right National Front soaking up support from many discontented souls, especially in the wake of the Eurozone crisis, it does not require any great stretch of the imagination to see that the bill is a deplorable attempt to win the affection of Frances 500,000-strong Armenian community through a perverse curtailment of free speech. As for the 70,000 Armenian citizens who live in Turkey today, most are pessimistic about the possibility that the injustices done to their murdered ancestors by the Ottoman Turks will ever be recognised by officialdom. Still, one has no real reason to suspect that they lack support among the general population. In 1915, after all, many Turks actually resisted the slaughter of their Christian fellow residents, who were transported to numerous extermination camps throughout the country before being melded together in mass graves. This is why not a few Turks have discovered that they have (say) an Armenian grandmother. Nobody knows the exact number of Armenians killed in the shootings and death marches that began in April 1915, but historians have estimated the figure to be between 1.2 million and 1.4 million. At any rate, on the threshold of the First World War, Turkish government records show that the Armenian population declined from 1,256,000 to 284,157, and between 1915 and 1916, some 972,000 Armenians were simply erased from official population records. In other words, doubts about the fact of the Armenian genocide are no longer tenable. We even possess a carbon-copy of the document that the Turkish interior minister, Talaat Pasha, sent his prefect in Aleppo on 15 September 1915, on which was printed the following order: You have already been informed that the Government has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons living in Turkey Their existence must be terminated, 36

however tragic the measures taken may be, and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to any scruples of conscience. Raphael Lemkin, the eminent Jewish-Polish lawyer, actually coined the word genocide to describe this atrocity against the Armenians. It is only shameful to reflect that many of the those who carried out the systematic massacres held senior positions in the Turkish government for years later, and that the ethnic cleansing did not come to an end in 1923. On the contrary, for years afterwards, the 300,000 Armenians who survived became the victims of further measures to drive them out of Turkey. With this history, one is perturbed to hear the threat Mr. Erdoan issued in April 2009 when he said he would deport Turkeys remaining Armenian population if the US congress did not cease pestering him by harking on about the genocide. In my country, Mr. Erdoan said, there are 170,000 Armenians. Seventy thousand of them are citizens. We tolerate 100,000 more. So, what am I going to do tomorrow? If necessary I will tell the 100,000: OK, time to go back to your country. Would Turkeys head of state envision the indignation he would undoubtedly experience if the EU ever decided to deport the thousands upon thousands of Turkish guest-workers across the continent? Ironically, although on a much greater scale, such thuggish rhetoric was reminiscent of the Sarkozy governments policy of mass-deportation of Frances Gypsy community to Romania in 2010, which provoked criticism from prominent human rights groups. At any rate, there is $13.5 billion at stake in Franco-Turkish trade, and France remains a major investor in the Turkish economy. With this in mind, it is clear that Prime Minister Erdoans rage must grapple with a sober assessment of the costs and benefits of imposing the sanctions he is surely hankering for: withdrawing the Turkish ambassador from France, placing a ban on French military aircraft and naval vessels from entering his countrys airspace or waters, taking his business with French military firms elsewhere, and curbing French investment into projects in his proud country whose body lies, by no fault of its own, beyond the supposedly so crucial

Bosphorus. Besides the diplomatic side of things, the sordid clash of two chauvinistic governments, both of which violate the same principle of free expression while decrying the rottenness of the other, is grating on the ears. Lets hope the Turkish government can grow up by 2015 in time for the hundred-year anniversary of the Armenian genocide, and for the French Republic to be able to assimilate a simple maxim into the fabric of its law and civil society.

A NATIONAL MYTH MEETS A NATIONALIST DREAM

Francis Cardell-Oliver on why Scotland doesnt need independence.

ne could be forgiven for mistaking Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond for the leader of a small colonised state located somewhere in the Horn of Africa, some time in the early 1960s. The language of the debate on Scottish independence, at least from the Scottish side, is framed very much in terms of us and them: John oGroats and Westminster, oppressed and oppressor, native and English. Whether he thinks of himself as William Wallace or Bonnie Prince Charlie, the leader of the Scottish National Party seems to inhabit a nostalgic fantasy land in which Scots are the hapless victims of their parasitic southern neighbours: saddled with problems not of their own making, denied a say in their destiny, living under the imposed dictates of a foreign tyranny. He seems to forget that the vast national debt and consequent necessity of deep public sector spending cuts which frustrate so many of his voter base (and arguably secured the SNPs success in 2011 elections) accrued under the watch of two Scottish PMs (and a Chancellor) of a country of which Scotland is very much a part.

As with most political debates of the west in this day and age, it was not long before the word democracy was invoked in favour of independence. There has been a tendency, since Fukuyama so confidently extolled the merits of the modern incarnation of the Athenian constitution back in 89, to pay perhaps more than healthy reverence to the mere concept of democracy, in all its symbolic and linguistic incarnations. For the SNP (and a great many other English speakers) the introduction of the language of democracy lends to its context a certain gravitas the feeling (to be expected) that where the right of self-determination is threatened something must be seriously, disturbingly and dangerously wrong, and in need of immediate, drastic and enthusiastic remedy. Of course such cheap oratorical devices dont (or shouldnt) work where the invocation of principle is based on a lie. That is very much true of Scottish independence. The Scottish people have, and have had for 300 years, a perfectly sufficient say in their own affairs. I have already mentioned a number of Scots at the very top of the tree; but in addition to the fact that many of the executive decisions lambasted by the SNP were made by a Scottish elected representative (Gordon Brown, member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath), they were voted on by a democratically elected legislature in which Scots had as much say as any of their southern neighbours. In fact Scottish representation in the House of Commons is a little more than proportional to its population: with 8% of the population, Scotland contains a little over 10% of the UKs electorates. To the SNPs argument that Scots representatives are severely outnumbered in the Commons by Englishmen the reply is simple: of course they are there are more English voters. The assertion that this state of affairs is somehow unfair directly impugns the egalitarianism of proportional democratic representation: it implies that Scots electors are somehow more equal (to paraphrase Orwell) than English. In any case, the whole line of reasoning rests on the assumption that there is some sort of bipolar opposition between English and Scottish legislative interests: a patent nonsense, the stupidity of which is amply illustrated by the fact that 53 of 59 Scottish MPs subscribe to the 37

same party platforms as their English counterparts. All this is not to deny that Scotland has some significant differences from its larger neighbour, notably cultural, but also in its legal system, financial sector, healthcare and social security arrangements. But theres already a highly developed system of devolution in place to deal with these differences. Scotlands separate legal system survived union in 1707 fully intact: the only English imposition thereon is the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords). I think we can trust the Law Lords not to oppress Scottish parties; similar institutions in the US and this country manage to judge cases from different jurisdictions without sparking too many secessionist movements. As for legislative policy differences which might be attributed to the Scottish people as a whole, and as distinct from the larger UK population, Salmond already gets to give effect to those through the Scottish Parliament. In a speech in London on January 24 he extolled Scottish policy on healthcare, the minimum wage, education, smoking, drinking, and infrastructure investment: policies which, he argued, reflected peculiarly Scottish values and sensibilities. But these changes were already quite adequately facilitated by the existing system. In 2009 the Calman Commission a body of experts convened to discuss the future of Scotland in the Union released its final report. It found that further devolution of certain powers would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Scottish Parliament. The Cameron-Clegg government has committed to implementing those recommendations. But it also found that some things defence, foreign policy and certain types of regulation, for example were better handled at a national level. In short, a complete handover of power over Scotland to the Scottish Parliament isnt politically necessary or advisable. The economic divorce of the Union raises similar issues of practicality and principle. To start off with, it raises some basic questions of fairness. Already the SNP has come out and said what it will and wont take of the UKs national revenue and debt. The SNPs preferred method of dividing North Sea oil revenues is 38

along geographical lines. The vast majority of oil fields are farther north than Berwick-on- Tweed, so the Scottish-preferred arrangement would see 8% of the population taking 90% of what is currently a national resource. But while theyre prepared to cash in on geographical pot-luck, the SNP arent so keen to share accountability for the national debt. The bailout of the Royal Bank of Scotland is arguably a great deal more Scottish than a few miles of sea bed half-way to Norway. But apparently that was the work of the incompetent foreigners at Westminster (that would be the Scottish PM, along with 60-odd Scottish MPs, mostly Labour members who voted for the bailout). But even the SNPs preferred approach wouldnt do Scotland much good. In stark contrast to their approach to the oil revenues, the SNP are prepared to countenance proportional division by population when it comes to the national debt. But that would still leave a newly independent Scotland with a debt of about 80% of its GDP. A yet thornier question is posed by the issue of currency. A few years ago, the SNP advocated joining the Euro: their models were places like Iceland and Ireland. I need hardly add that views have since changed. But staying with the pound whilst abdicating a say in Westminster policy would bring equally disagreeable fiscal problems a complete lack of control over monetary policy set with nought but English objectives and needs in mind. Ironically, it would be similar to the fantasy of world of self-interested English domination some Scots imagine now. All this is not to say that Scottish independence would mean economic doomsday for everyone north of the Tweed. These issues may well have solutions which could be worked out bilaterally, as they have been in other partitions. But it does go to show that the economics alone do not make a convincing case for Scottish independence. Scotlands more prosperous as it is. All of which brings us to the question: why does Scotland need independence? The answer is not freedom. The answer is not given the current and prospective state of devolution political. And its not economic. The answer is in the second word of the ruling partys name. And like all creeds of its kind, Scottish nationalism is based on a myth: the myth that

Scottish people are different from Englishmen, Irishmen, Welshmen, or Cornishmen. Most Scots define themselves as Scottish rather than British. Im not accusing them, or Alex Salmond, of being closet phrenologists. But perceptions of difference dont have to rest on anything so literal as eugenics. Nationalism is what you get when you take differences primarily historical and cultural, bolstered by peripheral political and economic claims and elevate them above commonalities. That focus on difference is distorting; its what makes nationalism inherently small-minded, historically inaccurate, foolish and dangerous. That is particularly true of the case of Scotland, where commonalities with the rest of the United Kingdom so vastly outweigh distinctions. What makes someone Scottish in the first place? There are nearly half a million each of Englishmen and Scots living in each others geographical boundaries, so that measure seems inadequate, and century upon century of cohabitation has blurred the lines of ancestry such that one can hardly claim Scottishness by descent. I am probably a fairly typical example of the latter confusion: my mothers side is largely Scottish, and my fathers English, but both English and Scots have added their blood to the line on both sides stretching back centuries; its simply impossible to disentangle the two or preference either. Religion is no longer the definitive arbiter of identity, and differences in speech, dress, pastimes or traditions seem too superficial to form the basis for any real distinction. That leaves us with ideas: values, beliefs, aspirations and ideals. And it is precisely here that we meet the strongest common ground in the Union. A passage of Salmonds recent London speech on this topic bears quoting at length: But most of all, in addition to institutional, cultural, economic and practical links, Scotland shares ties of family and friendship with our neighbours on these islands which can never be obsolete. And when you consider our shared economic interests, our cultural ties, our many friendships and family relationships, one thing becomes clear. After Scotland becomes independent, we will share more than a

monarchy and a currency. We will share a social union. That from the mouth of the greatest proponent of independence is the strongest argument for union. Scotland and the rest of Great Britain share a common model of government, a common tongue, common values, common aspirations and common interests: they have faced common adversity, shared and forged a common history, and should now be looking to a common future. No one wants to bully Scotland into a union it doesnt want: Westminster would almost certainly have to recognise what the SNP has described as the enormous moral and political force of a referendum, despite its constitutional superiority. But when Scottish voters go to the polls it should only take the briefest of glances at the last two hundred years of history and the reality of the present to expose the folly of the nationalist myth of difference and inequality. It was a Scot who penned the immortal lines: Thee haughty tyrants neer shall tame: All their attempts to bend thee down, Will but arouse thy generous flame; But work their woe, and thy renown. Rule, Britannia! rule the waves: Britons never will be slaves. For all its jingoistic bluster, the verse does sum up some profound elements of British (not Scottish, not English) identity: values such as freedom and equality, a belief in human dignity, and a commitment to unified resistance to that which threatens those principles. Let us not forget that, for all their medieval and baroque antagonism, these are two nations which, most lately, when it most mattered when the continent was darkened by a creed which so obscenely elevated difference over common humanity stood together in defence of shared interests and shared ideals. Those ideals should remain the guiding light of a shared country: a United Kingdom.

39

THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES

US Correspondent Chris Colalillo outlines the results thus far. s a result of winning Florida, Mitt Romney has gained frontrunner status in what has been a brutal primary. However, no conclusions should be drawn yet as primaries are notorious for their unexpected results, like Rick Santorums performance in Iowa. The primaries would be more predictable if a prominent conservative Republican were in Romneys leading position, as they would not receive the same level of criticism from other contenders. Although Romney currently leads, there is still a bloc of the traditional Republican support base that are suspicious of the liberal agenda he enacted whilst Governor of Massachusetts. Other candidates, in particular Newt Gingrich, have condemned Romneys record on taxation and healthcare legislation, labelling him the Massachusetts Moderate. You could be forgiven for thinking that Romney is like the Malcolm Turnbull of American politics. Romneys victories in New Hampshire and Florida, as well as his strong performance is Iowa, are significant as they are swing states in the 2012 election. However, the southern states are yet to hold their primaries and here Romney will face tougher competition from more conservative candidates, notably Gingrich who is from The South. This campaign is unconventional in the sense that there are three competing forces within the primaries: the moderate Romney, the libertarian Ron Paul and the conservatives Santorum and Gingrich. Republican primaries are traditionally collegial, however, this year has seen the eruption of a civil war within the party, potentially damaging the eventual nominees campaign. Ron Pauls campaign has drawn support from a significant portion of the Tea Party, denying the conservative candidates more votes. Although this is the case, no one believes that Ron Paul will be the nominee and

thus his candidacy has been a blessing to Romney by denying the conservative camp a sole challenger. The more conservative candidates that remain in the primaries, the more beneficial it is for Romney as none of them can garner enough votes to consistently beat him in future primaries. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has amended the nominating process for the 2012 primaries. All primaries held between February 7 and March 24, will have their delegates allocated proportionately, meaning all candidates will stay in the race longer, thus making it more unpredictable and difficult for Romney or any other candidate to win the nomination early. The Florida primary has given a good indication as to the most electable candidate as it is considered a microcosm of the rest of the country, hence its accuracy and importance in determining the election outcome. The primaries have given way to embellished personal achievements and outrageous promises, such as Gingrichs American Moon Colony by the end of his second term. There have also been suggestions from candidates of a flat income taxation rate of less that 20%. These statements are only a ploy to win over traditional Republican support and should be treated as such. No Congress would ever pass such legislation. Since 1980, the Republican nomination has always gone to either the winner of Iowa or New Hampshire. One of these candidates has also always won the South Carolina Primary. During 2012, this will not be the case as three different candidates have won these State primaries. There are three qualities that Republicans are looking for in their nominee, with no candidate currently possessing all three: (1) being the most passionate conservative; (2) being a skilled debater who can take on Obama; and (3) the ability the win the election. Romney is not the most passionate conservative, has satisfactory debating skills, and is the most electable. Gingrich is a passionate conservative, a skilled debater, but is considered unelectable by many. Santorum is a passionate conservative, a satisfactory debater, and mildly electable. Paul is a

40

passionate libertarian, an average debater, and considered unelectable. The first candidate to display these three qualities will win the nomination. Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, President Obama is in trouble. Many commentators have drawn parallels between the situation in 2012 and the 1980 election between Carter and Reagan, where unemployment was the focus of the campaign and was ultimately Carters undoing. If Obama wins this election, it will be by a slim margin, not a landslide like 2008. If Romney were to receive the nomination, as is looking increasingly likely but not certain, he would need to choose a more conservative Republican as his Vice-Presidential candidate in order to defeat Obama. This would give traditional conservative Republicans a reason to support his candidacy. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey would enhance Romneys prospects as he has a successful conservative record and executive experience. There have been countless rumours circulating that Romney, if he were to be the nominee, would choose Floridian Senator Marco Rubio a young, energetic conservative who understands the aspirations of ordinary Americans and has the ability to inspire those around him. Rubio is Hispanic and would win Florida for Romney, as well as providing serious competition for Obama in New Mexico and Nevada where many Hispanics reside. Over 25% of Nevadans are Hispanic and 10% of the population are Mormon like Romney. Either of these two as Romneys VP candidate could provide him with a winning formula. Florida is worth 29 electoral votes, New Mexico five, and Nevada six; but Romney would still have a fight on his hands as Rubio is still young, at 40 years of age and lacks executive experience. The RNC is holding its convention in Tampa, Florida a state that holds the key to the White House. The state of Ohio will be one to watch on election night along with Florida, as no Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio (18); and Florida (29) is essential for a Republican victory. The polls in Ohio close at 7.30pm EST and 8.00pm EST in Florida, indicating early on in the night whether the Republican candidate is on track to a victory.

This is not to say that if a Republican wins Ohio and Florida that they will win the election, but it will be an indication early on in the night that if the Republican candidate doesnt win these two states, they are in serious trouble and will fall short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. The state of Missouri (10) is another swing state to look out for. Since 1904, Missouri has voted for the winning candidate on all but two occasions (1956 (0.22%) and 2008 (0.1%)). Ohio is in the rust-belt, the old industrial area of the US and a place hard hit by the recession, as was Missouri. Many are looking for a saviour to create jobs in these two states. Since 1980, North Carolina (15) has voted Republican, except in 2008 where Obama won by 0.3% of the vote. This is a swing state for 2012 and will be pivotal in the race. The Democratic National Convention will be held in Charlotte, North Carolina emphasising the importance of this state in Obamas campaign. Virginia (13) is considered a swing state, and has voted Republican since 1968, however, Obama won it with 53% of the vote. If the Republican candidate wins Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia, together with the safe Republican states (notionally gaining 266 electoral votes) they will only need another four votes to win. Rubio as a VP could potentially win New Mexico (5) and/or Nevada (6), and tip the Republicans over the line. The excitement about Obama has certainly evaporated since 2008, which I suspect will result in a lower voter turnout this year. There is a sentiment of disappointment in many areas of America providing the Republicans with plenty of ammunition to use against Obamas administration. Obamas employment record will be the main line of attack from the Republican candidate, emphasising that Obama has spent $825 billion to stimulate the economy, with the unemployment figure remaining almost stagnant since he took office at over 8%, resulting in a net loss of 1.1 million jobs. ObamaCare is another talking point. Obama promised that his plan would save families $2,500 on their premiums, when in actual fact, it will increase the cost by 1-3%. Home foreclosures will come back to bite Obama. He promised that his Housing Program would prevent 7-9 million families from 41

foreclosure. Only 0.01% of borrowers have reduced their debt thus far, and his Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, has done him no favours by stating that Obamas programs have underperformed. And this is not to mention Obamas promised Green Jobs and the deficit spending. There have already been contentious campaign techniques adopted by the Obama administration. In December, the State of South Carolina announced that in order to vote in the 2012 elections, all voters are required to have an identification card. The State is providing this service free of charge so that those from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to obtain a card and vote. However, the Obama administration has criticised this new requirement as a Republican ploy to disenfranchise minorities and those on low- incomes, even though it is free and will significantly reduce the rate of voter fraud. Throughout January, there has been controversy over Obamas appointment of Richard Cordray as the new Commissioner of Consumer and Financial Protection Bureau during the Senate recess period. The legality of this appointment is still being questioned, however, it is clearly a political strategy of Obamas as Cordray is a popular attorney from Ohio a swing state, and the Bureau that he heads is a department that will receive support from concerned American consumers. Obama will need to hold onto North Carolina as he faces a tough fight in Florida, and could potentially lose it. If Obama wins North Carolina, the North East and the Great Lakes states, he will win re-election, as the Western states extending to the Pacific states are not wealthy in electoral votes. Commentators say this will be the most vicious election in some time, reflecting just how close it will be. If the Republicans manage to win the Presidency, the Senate and the House in 2012, it will be one of the most successful electoral recoveries from a political party in US history.

ONE CHINA UNDER WHOM?

Jack Nitschke examines modern relations between China and Taiwan. he relief was palpable in both Beijing and Washington, upon the re-election of Ma Ying-Jeou (KMT) as President of the Republic of China (as Taiwan must anachronistically continue to call itself) on the 14th January 2012. Scraping in with 51.6% of the vote over his nearest rival, Tsai Ing-Wen of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Mr. Ma can be said to enter his second four year term with a clear mandate to continue his policy of engagement with the Communist Mainland. After 8 years of abrasive incompetence under the Democratic Progressive Party of Chen Shui-Bian (now serving a 20 year prison sentence for embezzlement), Mr Mas policy of engagement with the mainland has brought not only significantly increased wealth, but it has improved relations with the Communists to a degree hitherto thought impossible. Mainland tourists visit the island in droves, as do Taiwanese the mainland. Mr. Ma has deftly skirted around the delicate issue of Taiwans status by declaring his belief, alongside that of Chinas President, Hu Jintao, in the existence of One China, conveniently never elaborating upon what exactly he means by that. Despite these successes, the narrowing margin of victory (he won in 2008 with 58% of the vote) suggests that Taiwanese voters are growing increasingly wary of Mr. Mas cosiness with the mainland, which obstinately treats Taiwan as if it is a renegade province rather than the functioning democratic society that it is. The issue of Taiwanese sovereignty has become the defining issue of the beleaguered islands politics since free elections first began. The two major parties take markedly different stance of the issue. The Kuomintang, which now controls the Presidency and the Legislature (losing 17 seats), clings to the territorial claims of the pre-1949 Republic of China, which include Mongolia, along with parts of India and Kazakhstan, whilst the opposition DPP supports the notion of an independent Taiwan, despite the outrage this

42

provokes within the government of the mainland. Ruling from 2000 until 2008, the DPP squandered almost all of its goodwill through a combination of gross, blatant corruption at home, and moronic sabre rattling across the strait. After a punishing 2008 election it has, despite its defeat, managed to claw back credibility and establish itself as an effective opposition after years of languishing under the weight of high profile corruption scandals. Tsai Ing-Wen seemed to perform a miracle in bringing her party back from the dead, and presenting it as a viable, sane alternative to the incumbent establishment. The positions held by both political camps are something of a quagmire, as China has stated unequivocally that anything remotely representing a declaration of independence will be met with military force. So, despite rhetoric and the aggressive nature of Taiwanese politics (where it is not uncommon for politicians to physically attack each other in public), both sides are forced to accept the bizarre status quo, where Taiwan sits as a potential final battleground for a civil war that technically hasnt ended yet. Mr. Ma has been wise to dance around the issue, hoping to placate the communists with diplomacy and lucrative trade; so far he has succeeded, but the ominous tone of the Communist Partys One China policy makes the inhabitants of the beleaguered island wary of becoming too cosy with mainlanders. Assuming that China does not see fit to invade, it stands to reason that it inevitably will have to acknowledge de jure the independence that Taiwan has enjoyed since 1949. With this in mind, the results of the election should make all Taiwanese feel increasingly confident about the future of their island, which is increasingly asserting an independent cultural identity as well as a political one. Mr. Mas approach to China seems a sensible one, ignoring the gargantuan issue of independence for as long as it is not prudent to act decisively upon it. The United States seems to welcome his strategy as well, no doubt horrified at the prospect of a resurgent Chinese Civil War in which it would be obliged to intervene. China for its part seems adverse to

any potential conflict and delighted with the approach Mr. Ma has taken. Things cant go on like this forever though. If this election is any sign, it is that Taiwanese voters fear a vengeful militant China, but they also fear the status quo continuing as it is, condemning them to diplomatic isolation and the uncertainty of existing only as a political anachronism.

IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THE US AND CHINA INEVITABLE?

Angus Duncan examines the question of China- US tension.

ver the past few decades we have seen the resurgence of a great and powerful China. However, at the same time we have seen the rise of criticism towards China, particularly from America who remains concerned over Chinas ongoing economic growth and military modernisation and what it means for American international power. A question that has arisen in this context is whether conflict is inevitable between the America (US) and China? The first thing to note when answering a hypothetical question like this is that we cant attempt to look into a crystal ball and reach a definitive answer. What we can do, however, is examine China and America today and reach a likely conclusion. In doing so there is first an examination of those factors that deter conflict whilst the second section identifies areas that increase the likelihood of conflict. The point is argued that some degree of conflict is highly possible, but not inevitable. 43

 Essentially there are two key aspects that deter the likelihood of conflict occurring. The first is the high degree of economic interdependence between China and America. Although it is difficult to fully assess the impact of economic links in deterring a potential conflict, American and China are so economically tied to the point that neither side can afford to radically alter their economy without drastically affecting the other or adversely impacting their own economy. To understand why this interdependence has arisen we must consider the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). As America began to accumulate national debt at a rapidly increasing rate during the GFC it began selling its debt overseas in order to keep the American economy running and prevent it defaulting on its debt repayments. China started to buy American debt in the form of Treasury bonds. The buying of bonds has continued and China is now the single largest foreign holder of American debt, holding an estimated $US 1,154.1 billion. The reason for this accumulation of bonds by China has been to keep the value of its currency, the Yuan, low. A low valued Yuan means that Chinese goods are cheaper to buy and export which makes them more competitive and easier to sell on the international market. The easier Chinese goods are to sell the more demand there is for them, the more demand the greater the level of economic productivity in the Chinese market. The more productivity the more money there is with which to buy American bonds. The more America bonds China accumulates the lower the value of the Yuan. If one of these factors is lost, the feedback loop fails. Although China appears to be the main beneficiary of the economic relationship, much to the annoyance of Americas manufacturing industry, there are three things that must be considered. Firstly, America is the largest consumer of Chinese exports. This trade link has been beneficial for American consumers and companies who enjoy cheap products and increased profitability. Secondly, 27% of China's exports are actually generated by American owned corporations, which pass on their savings to consumers at home. Finally, America cannot afford to stop selling China its 44

bonds in order to sustain the value of the American dollar and to prevent an increase in its borrowing costs. Thus, America does receive some economic benefit from its relationship with China. However, recently this economic relationship has become problematic with the American Senate passing the Currency Manipulation Legislation in order to sanction states, China in particular, who manipulate their currency. Since this legislation has not yet come into full force and sanctions have not yet been passed it is hard to establish what effect it will have on the current degree of interconnectedness between China and America, but some type of impact is likely. For now it remains a positive factor that deters conflict as neither want to hurt their economic benefits The second factor that decreases the inevitability of war is Chinas satisfaction with the status quo. The status quo describes rules of the game which determine institutions, rules and acceptable forms of behaviour in the international system. The US has been the main creator of the current status quo and thus the status quo remains something that one would assume that America would want to uphold and protect status quo. So is China a threat to the status quo then? The point when writing on whether China is satisfied, is that China is just beginning to become a constructive participant in the global community. It was only during the GFC that China displayed an unprecedented confidence in engaging with international institutions and making proposals to reform financial regimes. China now believes that the GFC signalled the beginning of a new global era, one in which China should play a more active role. From what we have seen so far China is willing to engage within the status quo in a positive manner. It should also be recognised that China does not simply face an American or Western led order, but an order that is the product of centuries of struggle and innovation, a system that is highly developed, expansive, integrated and institutionalized in the societies and economies of both advanced capitalist states and developing states. It is fair to say that any attempt made by China to alter the status quo would receive serious international backlash

and only give rise to further suspicion towards China. With this understanding China is well aware that the best means through which to continue its peaceful rise is not through provocation and secrecy, but instead through greater involvement in the international system, clearly evident from its involvement in the United Nations, peacekeeping operations, APEC, ASEAN, BRICs Forum or G20. China has too much to lose should it work against the status quo. Therefore, Chinas satisfaction serves to weaken tensions between it and America and thus reduces the likelihood of conflict as America will being to view China as less of a threat to the international institutions it has established. Despite these two factors decreasing the likely potential of a direct head to head conflict, what more likely remains the case is that American will become involved in some Asian regional dispute in which China has been provoked into using force. The most perilous of these situations is the ongoing Taiwan dispute and Chinas territorial claims in the South China Sea. To quote two academics writing on the topic of Taiwan, Perhaps nowhere else on the globe is the situation so seemingly intractable and the prospect of a major war involving the America so real. The Taiwan dispute developed after the defeated Nationalists Government fled mainland China to Taiwan in 1949 to escape persecution from the victorious Chinese Communists at the end of the Chinese Civil War. The Taiwan issue is now so well entrenched amongst China and Taiwan, and America to a lesser extent, that neither side can afford to back away from their position on the issue, even if it results in war. On one hand, China believes that Taiwan is part of mainland China and refuses to accept that Taiwan is a sovereign independent nation as a matter of precedence and nationalistic sentiment. Taiwan disagrees, arguing that it is an independent nation, but has struggled to achieve this status as China continues to be ready and willing to use force to bring it back under mainland control should Taiwan declare its independence. America is involved as a de- facto ally of Taiwan with relations being governed by the Taiwan Relations Act 1979.

However, Americas role is predominantly as a mediator that tries to uphold the current status quo which is to prevent Taiwan declaring its independence, whilst at the same time trying to stop China using force against Taiwan. To do this America has adopted a policy of strategic ambiguity, making it clear that should Taiwan come under any unprovoked attack from China, America is willing to use force. What remains unclear, however, it whether America would protect Taiwan should it come under attack after declaring its independence from China. Why is Taiwan an area of high contention? The strong diplomatic stance taken by each party has reduced the room for diplomatic manoeuvring to such an extent that a small diplomatic miscalculation in a statement or military move could erupt into a war. What may begin as a regional conflict could soon develop into a conflict encompassing China and America who would be unwilling to back down. Although not necessarily a conflict as predicted by some, it is a situation that all sides continue to prepare for and could result in a global power shift. What needs to be stressed is that the character of Chinas revisionism on the Taiwan issue does not appear to be reflective of its broader diplomacy elsewhere in the region or the globe. For now Taiwan remains a highly dangerous and volatile situation where conflict is potentially likely. The second regional hot spot where conflict is likely to occur is the South China Sea. The importance of the sea is its strategic importance, as it boasts some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, and is rich in oil and natural resources. The focal point of the South China Sea is ongoing sovereignty disputes between various South East Asian nations of which China is one. Flare-ups between China, Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have become more frequent particularly after American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that America has a national interest in the Sea. This interest arises because 90% of oil destined for Americas allies in the northeast pass through the area, secondly trade between America and Asia is of key importance and finally to uphold free navigation through the waters. This new stance from America marks not only the 45

internationalisation of the South China Sea dispute, but also the opening of another front in Sino-America rivalry. The concerning feature of the South China Sea dispute for America and other Asian countries is that China feels it can claim undisputable sovereignty over almost the entire body of water which remains highly contested amongst all nations involved. If such a precedent were to be allowed favouring China then an extremely disturbing and worrying trend may begin to emerge. The reason why China is unwilling to back down is because the area remains rich in oil and other natural resources, commodities that the Chinese mainland is beginning to lack and the prices of which are beginning to increase. For this reason alone the sea remains a core national interest, something which China is prepared to use force to retain and, as previously noted, has increased its military budget in order to do so. Although not an issue as old or as deeply entrenched as the Taiwan dispute, the South China Sea presents itself as a potential conflict through which America and China can measure their potential dominance or lack of it. Again, the South China Sea does not reflect Chinas broader international foreign policy, but an area instability and future unpredictability. Although there are a number of factors, including the possession of nuclear weapons, population size, military spending, political differences and the newly emerging trend of computer warfare which could all contribute to or prevent a war, the four factors I have mentioned are what I see as the leading influences that will either result in or deter conflict being an inevitability between American and China. Despite the question being extremely difficult to answer definability, a prediction of a full-scale Cold War-style rivalry or war between America and China is highly unlikely. Unprecedented economic and strategic interdependence between the two mitigate against such a trend. However, ongoing East Asian regional disputes present themselves as flash points where conflict is highly likely to involve both China and America. Therefore, some degree of conflict between these two nations is a very real possibility. However, to say that conflict is inevitable is to 46

ignore the ever changing conditions of international politics and how these changes can affect future predictions.

HUMAN RIGHTS
Blair Hurley examines the multi-faceted issue. he concept of human rights is an immensely popular piece of theory in international political discourse. Many seem to intuitively link human rights with ideas of justice, as they are both very simple to comprehend and seemingly powerful to deploy as a political tool. Reputation aside, human rights should be regarded as a theory with some force, with principles based on contemplations of justice. An introduction to human rights cannot be complete without mentioning the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration repeatedly mentions rights side-by-side with human dignity and the Declarations first article asserts that humans have reason and conscience. This language does indeed echo the work of Kant (and to varying extents of Hobbes, Locke, and

Rousseau), who located the seat of universal laws in respect for intrinsic human worthiness, which he termed dignity. A critical illustration of the core philosophical assumption, or underpinning, of human rights can be observed from the UDHC; and that is that human beings are in some way special.

1. WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS? Human rights assert that persons are, or should be, metaphysically inviolate, and that they are entitled to certain things. This conclusion is reached from observations about the nature of people or the way they might behave. Rawlss famous original position provides an excellent example of an attempt to define the locus of rights in humans. Very briefly, the Rawlss original position tries to account for moral judgments and helps to explain our having a sense of justice by postulating a group of people charged with choosing principles of justice without existing as people with any idiosyncratic features. Rawlss parties to the original position are the hypothetical embodiment of what Kant and the UDHC consider human dignity. The idea of human rights, however, is not unassailable. In fact its weakness probably lies in its conceptual simplicity. Very simply, a human right asserts that someone is entitled to something only by existing as a human. Speciesism aside, human rights appear only to be totally abstract and normative, and unable to actually do or achieve anything. Edmund Burkes avowal to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician rather than the professor of metaphysics in derision of rights demonstrates that talk of rights could in fact be a pursuit entirely illusory. Indeed, human rights could very seriously only exist as a means of describing of the function of legal systems, and the entitlements and obligations one might find therein. If this is so, it would seem that rights- talk would collapse as a useful and morally authoritative political theory in discourses on global justice, and those fighting for noble causes all across the world would have to find a new, more cogent framework through which to pursue their goal for justice. 2. ATOMOS: NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN A HUMAN RIGHT? Particularly prescient on this point is a consideration of the Marxist method and theory of history with regard to human rights. Although never garnering as much attention as other discourses of and about international relations and global justice, the Marxist conception of human rights does lay convincing claim to an alternative mode of considering

international governance. The critical position that Marxists take on human rights is, of course, fundamentally linked, and possibly dependent upon their considerations of capitalism, but it is not simply short-hand for an ulterior motive to criticise bourgeois economics. The Marxist (or Marxian) approach to rights- talk (the language of rights, rights as a language) can be sourced primarily to two works by Marx: On the Jewish Question: Man is far from being considered, in the rights of man, as a species-being; on the contrary, species-life itselfsociety appears as a system which is external to the individual and as a limitation of his original independence. The only bond between men is natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and egoistic persons. The German Ideology: Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc.real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life- process. These two texts of the Marxist tradition (i) define human rights as the product of historical economic-political structures and (ii) critically examine the moral character of human rights. The Jewish Question explicates the moral effect of rights and just as urgently identifies that the concept of rights claim is unintelligible outside societal institutions: it is observed that rights claims (at least in their first-generation forms) serve to atomise people as moral units. It is stressed in the Jewish Question that this consequence of human rights fetters any kind of realisation of political justice. The German Ideology builds upon the Jewish Question by arguing that our current conception of the language of rights is a product of the structure of our economic- political institutions. Put simply, The German Ideology powerfully asserts that our conception 47

of the world is heavily contingent upon the mode by which we make things. As a result, rights can be exposed as a theory than does not sufficiently penetrate and describe the phenomenology of the human experience, and does not have the best claim to an authority as a toolor a source of guidancefor political action. Instead we have our productive forces and our social and material relationship to which to consider in order to achieve international justice. Indeed, Marx may never have touched on the subject more explicitly when he claimed right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby. 3. ACTION WITHOUT RIGHTS? The body of academic work known as liberation theology can help further illuminate the relationship between the language of human rights and the Marxist method. Liberation theology can be seen to be a nuanced and informative application of the Marxist method to pressing questions of global justice because of the historical conflict between political, economic and cultural differences between North and South America. The virtual plethora of disparities between the North and South Americas as a context for the current of thought that was, and is, liberation theology gives Marxist theory some real substance as a method for framing questions of global justice. It is possible to identify within liberation theology four limbs of criticism of human rights, the first of these being very similar to the theoretical discussion attempted above the charge that human rights suffers from a lack of systemic vision. The second of these criticisms is that human rights gives legitimacy to the systems and authorities responsible for violating the supposed human rights of populations of people. This is achieved through the appropriation of the vocabulary of human rights by the upper echelons of political and economic structures. First world countries are able to absolve themselves of their connection with, or participation in, the oppression of people in third world countries by deploying the language of human rights to criticise horrible events abroad. 48

Perhaps a result of geo-political locus of liberation theology historically being Latin- American, the third criticism levelled against human rights is its propensity to be used as a device to condemn or actually justify the prevention of attempts to better the plight of people undertaking initiatives informed or guided by second-generation rights. It seems absurd that human rights theory should be in conflict with itselfwho is allowed to make claims against human rights, and who adjudicates their claims? Which is to be preferred: talk of liberty, or talk of fairness and equality? The final and arguably most important criticism is that human rights risk a denial of agency of the poor. The fact that human rights language can be appropriated by bourgeois government bureaucrats objectifies rather than enfranchises the poor and powerlesswho must be the prime subject of justice. Indeed, liberation theologians should be regarded to be pressing a legitimate concern when they assert a theory of justice that requires institutions that work with the poor, rather than for them. This fourth criticism may fly in the face of groups who employ the language human rights and are legitimately concerned with the plight of the planets most impoverished and defenceless, and while this conflict is incredibly unfortunate, it goes right to the heart of the issue at hand. The repeated accusations of duplicity (the idea that human rights plays into the hands of powers than control the means of production, however they are purported to be possessed by the worlds worst-off) that liberation theologians have historically heaped on the theory of human rights, informed by the Marxist method, is heavily influenced by the American geo-political arena. The avowedly capitalist, finance dominated North America has never stopped preaching its human rights rhetoric, perceiving and interacting with the South through such a lens. In contrast, the predominantly raw-material producing, industrially fledgling and foreign-capital- dependent South has throughout time taken on the character of a subject, or a kind of other to the North, its proximity to the ownership (or

control) of the means of production notably more distant. These observations account for something. The Marxist thesis for the primacy of the productive forces as the driving force, the most critical, if not only, cause of the progress of history is what precipitates this response to human rights. The productive forces about which Marxs theory of history revolves depends upon an ontology founded on materialism. The material relations of production, peoples labour power, and the means of production, the material interaction between man and nature, is mediated by social relations of productionthe way material production is socially organised. As alluded to above in the German Ideology, these social relations are conditioned by the material productive relationsthe way people organise themselves and think about the world. It is obvious that the language of human rights, viewed in this manner, is a product of our social relations of production and as such is not a factor instrumental in the pursuit of justice. 4. MARXIST RIGHTS? So what? Is the Marxist method only full of criticism, or does it offer a superior method of pursuing justice than that of human rights? When it comes to giving an instructive, authoritative framework through which to interpret and analyse international relations, the Marxist methods response to this challenge might appear paradoxical and even somewhat Machiavellian to the average run-of-the-mill liberal. Some statements by Marx can be recalled to give evidence for an argument that the Marxist method accommodates or is compatible with the theory or language of human rights. Indeed it may be that Marxism requires the idea of rights in some form in order to function as a theory. Volume One of Capital reads: the peculiar nature of the commodity sold (a persons labour powera productive forcea property of their person that is instrumental in material economic production) implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and

the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working- day to one of definite normal duration. A little later on in the Jewish Question than that already quoted: Only when the real, individual man re- absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his own powers as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished. The passage in Capital points out that the concept of labour power seems to imply that people possess an abstract inviolability with regards to their person in their participation in the capitalist mode of productiona right to use and withhold labour power at will. There does prima facie appear to be some sort of compatibility or similarity between ones ability (in the Marxist method) to sell their labour power, as possessing rights in their person to do so. The second passage from the Jewish Question exposits a kind of singularity that Marx perceives to be necessary to unite or combine the person as an individual and as a member of the broader global human community. Described as communal rights, the Marxist method conceives humans as species- beingssubjects of a kind of cosmopolitan justice. Whatever the texts of the Marxist method say about the rights of capitalists and proletariat, it was not intended to be asserted that people possess rights in themselves when it is mentioned that people own their labour power, and have the right to sell it. Even though Marx may have adopted legal language to describe concepts outside the capitalist mode of production, the following statement from the Grundrisse provides the best description of the Marxist position on the possible link between the idea of labour power, and that of rights in the person: All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on 49

better under the modern police than e.g. on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, that the right of the stronger prevails in their constitutional republics as well, only in another form. Indeed the Marxist method does not make itself compatible with classical formulations of human rights with its historical/economic ontological term of labour power. The Marxist method does of course consider all legal systems and concepts of ownership and possessionsuch as the ownership and possession rights in ones person, as well as the ownership of physical objectsto belong to social production relations. To better elucidate the meaning of the use of the word right in Capital it is crucial to understand that while a person might have a legal right (or consider themselves to have a moral right) to withhold their labour power to any particular buyer they wish, they really have no power at all not to sell their labour power to someone. 5. CONCLUSION It might strike one as chilling (and difficult to understand) that Marxism refuses to acknowledge any kind of individual rights in the proletariat, but this is a reflection Marxisms concern for a broader, more far- reaching conception of justice, one that focuses on the material, the actually observable. Although in historiography the Jewish Question predates the development of the Marxist theory of history, its charge that the rise of the liberal idea of the dualism of the person as a private individual and a public citizen is a symptom of bigger problems in our current political systems isor can belinked with the Marxist theory of history. As a result, the Marxist view of history informs and gives content to its global, almost biological conception of rights, and that is achieved by this idea of the development of humanitys productive forces. The disconnect between ideals and the observable world that Burke criticised about rights can by-and-large be considered bridged by the Marxist method. By shifting ones focus from an individual person to that of human society as a whole as the common (albeit larger) dominator of justice, and having this 50

conception of global societal rights informed by an understanding of its function as a system, one can satisfy Burkes challenge and call in the aid of the farmer and the doctorone can locate, in reality, the power to satisfy the demands for which a human right might call, and explain and justify, beyond the framework of human rights, how this right was made effective. To many it might seem that the Marxist method really accommodates no satisfactory formulation of claims as of right. Setting aside any sentimental grounds and circular reasoning one might attribute to such criticisms, it must be stressed that the Marxist conception of rights is such a high level form of rights because of the methods ability to locate an explanation for what rights-advocates term civil, political and economic rights through material (non-metaphysical) means. The biggest issue with the Marxist methods partial compatibility with rights may in fact be its palatability. The simultaneous character of piety and flexibility of human rights is what gives it its popularity in international political discourse, and to do away with what many have intuitively come to accept (humans are, or should be inviolable) in such a form so easily comprehended is probably what has led many to attempt to locate a greater degree of compatibility between human rights and the Marxism. The obvious response to quasi-issues such as these really does involve an idiom containing the same moral message as Platos cave; the more light one can shed on the true nature of reality, the more knowledge, wisdom and power one will accrue in order to transform the world for the better. This must be the deeper meaning able to be divined from the above dialogue between the language of human rights and that of Marxism, but it must also be remembered that Marxism still retains some conception of a right. This might lead one to wondering about a very bizarre question indeed: would it be possible to explain this abstraction away, given more evidence?

#FIRSTWORLDPROBLEMS
Tim Sondalini examines the worldly impact of anti-piracy laws. Last month I was pretty vigorous in my opposition to the SOPA and PIPA legislation. These two amendments to American copyright law would have profoundly damaged the operation of the Internet and seriously constrained the potential of this incredible medium. In the midst of one of my anti-SOPA rages a friend called me out on my addiction to a very #firstworldproblem. His argument went something like this: 1. The Internet is a privilege of living in the developed world. 2. What youre yelling about is something only a very lucky few will ever care about. 3. Itd be infinitely better if you focussed your attention on something that will actually do some good. 4. Now shut up and drink your beer. My friend had a point. There is an extensive debate around the existence of a Digital Divide between rich, connected, developed countries and poor, unconnected and invisible developing countries. From this frame of mind the mass hysteria around the Wikipedia blackout appears to be a little conceited. But my friends argument misses out on a crucial point. That point is this: the importance of the current debate around SOPA and the Internets philosophical foundations transcends the current time frame. It must be recognised that the decisions made now, while the Internet is still in its turbulent teenage years, will have a dramatic effect on the lifestyle of future generations, even those whose parents are currently on the deprived side of the Divide. The statistics kept by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) statistics reveal that developing countries lag behind the

West in the total proportion of their population using the Internet. This isnt surprising, but what is unexpected is that the growth of the Internet usership in developing countries has been superluminally fast. Between 2001 and 2011 the proportion of citizens with Internet access in developing countries increased from 2.3 users per 100 people to 26.3 users per 100 people. Currently, the level of Internet penetration in developing countries is broadly comparable to the level of Internet adoption in developed countries in 2001. A Digital Divide certainly exists, but for a developing economy to be roughly at the same level of technological adoption as a developed economy was ten years ago is a success in my books. So people all over the world are using the Internet in ever larger numbers, how does SOPA affect the future of these users and of the currently unconnected? SOPA and PIPA were designed to bolster the rights of copyright holders. If SOPA and its twin had been passed the broad effect would have been to shift the onus of protecting copyright from the copyright holder to the website hosting potentially copyrighted material. YouTube would be sued out of existence, so would Flickr and basically any other website which lets users post content. SOPA and legislative provisions like it would stall e-commerce and any online based entrepreneurship. In the developing world, where a colossal amount of the economy is reliant on entrepreneurs that can quickly disperse and share information, any potential speed bump in the spread of this information will have dramatic negative effects. So along with Mills argument about free speech being good for cultural development, in todays connected world free speech is also required for economic development. But again; whats so great about being connected to the Internet if you spend most of your time scrabbling for food? The point of this article is that what we do to the Internet now 51

will forever scar the network. Yes, it is tough in developing nations right now, and it will be tough for a lot longer but eventually standards of living will increase and the developing world will deliver billions of entrepreneurs ready to make their mark on the world. If SOPA had been passed earlier this year, the Internet which these developing entrepreneurs have only just begun to explore would have been an entity which restricted their ability to entertain new ideas and bolster their nations. While SOPA may have been on face value a #firstworldproblem its restrictions would have dramatic ramifications for everyone, even those who are yet to be connected.

52

REVIEWS

YOU CANT READ THIS BOOK: CENSORSHIP IN AN AGE OF FREEDOM

Past President Zach Cole reviews a modern polemic. A book by Nick Cohen Published in Great Britain by Fourth Estate (2012) 4.5/5

If you get the chance to enact one lawmake it the first amendment f I had been browsing the same well known bookshop off Piccadilly Circus, as I was when I picked up Nick Cohens newest polemic, 20 years ago there would have been a real threat of harm to my person. For a period of time, bookshops not skyscrapers, parliaments or popular tourist attractions - were the target of Islamic extremists. Why? Because of a fatwa imposed on any institution or person connected to the publishing of Salman Rushdies The Satanic Verses. The Satanic Verses is a classic piece of literature, but a controversial one. And the story of how it caused both the left and right of

the United Kingdom to openly oppose freedom of speech and censor a free thinking intellectual in favour of radical extremists, forms the basis of Cohens critical, engaging and often eye-opening expos on censorship in an age of freedom. Cohen pulls no punches. From religion, to corporate irresponsibility and whistle blowing, and oligarchs and English super injunctions, It is an eye-opener. An attack on the left and right and their failure to protect the little guy. A thrilling account of why a whistleblower must decide between feeding his children and the moral high ground. Dedicated to Christopher Hitchens, it is no surprise that Cohen begins with a prosaic discussion about how the intelligentsia sides with religious extremists, rather than free- thinking and publishing authors. He thoughtfully examines why the intelligentsia deride an author who receives a death threat after criticising religion rather than attacking the extremists that encourage individuals to kill another. He forces the reader to ask the question: why should anything be off limit to discussion? Sex, religion, politics you name it. In an age of corporate bashing, Cohens articulate discussion on how the UK is a haven for criminal oligarchs and corporate renegades, seeking the protection of English libel law, provides a simple remedy to increasing information and transparency in the corporate sector; protect the whistleblower. It is a book for all. Provocative, witty and easy to read. Enough detail for philosophical and political buffs with a passion for Milton, Voltaire and Mill. Light enough for your mum, your dad, your siblings, grandparents, neighbours and friends, even if they have no interest in freedom of speech. And most importantly, a book for anyone with the view that the right to free speech should be curtailed by anything more than strict defamation law. It is engaging, thrilling and moving.

53

THE IRON LADY

Myles Parish on an Oscars favourite.

focuses on Mrs Thatchers present struggle against dementia, and as a bonus we get a small set of shallow and narrow vignettes from the Thatchers lives prior to Mrs Thatchers downfall in 1990 that appear like the shaved ham in a cheapskates sandwich not often enough and without enough depth of flavour.

Directed by Phyllida Lloyd. Released thru Path Starring Meryl Streep and Jim Broadbent hen I discovered that The Iron Lady a film about arguably one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, certainly of the Cold War was to be directed by the same individual responsible for the soporific Mamma Mia! The Movie, I was tempted to say Mamma mia myself. However, I exercised restraint and resolved to see the film on Cheap Tuesday instead. I have to say, what I saw caused a deep impression. The film opens with an aged Baroness Thatcher, escaped from the captivity of her home a metaphor for her crumbling mind, perhaps? purchasing a pint of milk from her corner shop. She wanders home to the relief of her caring and doting daughter, who chastises the help for letting Mrs Thatcher out. Later on, Mrs Thatcher sits down to tea, and the always charming Jim Broadbent appears, playing the long-since passed away Denis Thatcher, Margarets husband. He is visible to his wife and the audience only, a visual manifestation of Mrs Thatchers tragic dementia. While Mr Broadbents performance is to be commended as always he plays a big softie it is ultimately his presence that causes the film to go astray. The vast majority of the film

Just two rather important Cold War personalities they forgot to mention. This is not to say that the film itself is rubbish. I thought it was a marvellous piece of film- making. It looks good, the attention to detail is wonderful, and the performances by all the cast are just brilliant. Many of the small parts say the most after the perhaps 15 minutes that war hero and statesman Airey Neave (played by Nicholas Farrell) is on screen, you feel your gut drop when his fate befalls him. Meryl Streep gives a very solid performance as Mrs Thatcher her accent is spot on, and the hair and makeup people have done an excellent job. Any awards are richly deserved. Unfortunately, though, this is not the conservative dream-in-reality that many of us hoped for. You get the feeling that and Im editorialising heavily here the only way the Hollywood establishment felt safe portraying the Baroness was at her very weakest, merely skimming over the woman who, until recently, remained deeply influential worldwide. The film ends up being more about the tragedy of dementia and the effects it has on people and their families. Thats not a bad thing but a film about the Thatcher Legend this is not.

54

THIS SPACE COULD BE YOURS. STATE relies upon the support of generous individuals in the community. In return, we offer space for your advertisement. For more information, please email us at statemagazine.uwa@gmail.com

55

POLITIC-LOL
FROM THE FACEBOOK PAGE, OUR WINNER IS...

I LOVE APPLES Jack Slattery. Well done, sir. Eternal honour and glory are yours.

This issues photo [Hint: thats French President Nicolas Sarkozy.] Send captions to statemagazine.uwa@gmail.com. Well also have it up on the Facebook page, so you can also leave captions there!

56

UWA MOCK PARLIAMENT ROUND 2 - OCTOBER 2011

Interested in contributing to State? Dont like what you read here? Why not send us a letter, or better still, write us an article! Were looking for writers, editors, photographers and formatters. Please contact us at statemagazine.uwa@gmail.com
58