Recently in World Politics Category

The announcement that Australia is going to sell uranium to India in contravention of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has received little comment in the media. This is surprising as in my mind it's a first class scandal.

It comes at the same time as the US is planning to provide nuclear technology to India. Hardly a coincidence.

Whether Australia can keep track of uranium once it enters the closed Indian nuclear industry is a moot point. If the Indian industry is that accountable then they should sign the NPT.

Ignoring this major international convention will damage Australia's reputation. It will be difficult to complain about others flouting agreements when we conveniently ignore this one.

Perhaps our limp, morally feeble Labor Party should take a stand on this issue. Don't hold your breath, though.

The British High Court has overturned a decision by the Home Office that disallowed a UK passport being granted to long term Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.

Hicks' mother was a British citizen so he's eligible to apply for British citizenship.

Barring a successful appeal (to the Privy Council?), Hicks should get his passport, placing the UK government in a delicious dilemma. They have already obtained the release of other British nationals from the Guantanamo Gulag. Should they do the same for Hicks?

Hopefully, they will, ending one of the most disgraceful episodes* attributable to the current Australian government, one where the authorities turned their backs on an Australian citizen who had broken no Australian law and detained without charge for years.

*And with regards to this government, that's saying something. (Is this seditious?)

As some of you may know, I spent three of the last four years living and working in the UK, under an Ancestry Visa. My grandfather was born in Lancashire and because of this I was able to live unrestricted there for four years. At the end of this, if I'd wanted to, I could have applied for residency. As the story went, I didn't want to stay there, and after spending a year living it up predominantly in the Czech Republic, I'm now back in Syders grinding out an 8 to 4 living teaching English to those who can't. It's a good job, but yes, sometimes I still get the wish that I was somewhere else.

So it was with mixed feelings that I read today about proposed changes to immigration laws in the UK. The idea is to introduce a points-based immigration system, perhaps similar to ours here in Australia.

My first reaction was that the idea was a load of rubbish, but as I thought about it my reaction changed somewhat. Part of the idea, i think is to "select migrants with in-demand skills in shortage in the existing workforce, while closing the door on unskilled workers from outside the European Union." That doesn't sound so unreasonable really. There is high enough unemplyment in the UK and Europe in general that it's not really necessary for Australians, Kiwis and Saffas to be living it up in all the bar, construction and nannying jobs. Those who go there with skills (more than I did) should still be able to gain entry.

And anyway, this 'tradition' of going to London, of doing the European Circuit (Pampalona, Octoberfest, Gallipoli) is getting to be a bit of a joke. It's possible to live in London for years and years and know and socialise with only Australians. Is earning the pound really that important? I'm no saint, nor am I the most adventurous of buggers, but I still avoided 'antipodean hotspots' like the plague.

And another thing. The system as it is is already being widely abused. The Inland Revenue (taxation fellows) have no clear communication channels with Immigration - I know a guy who went initially on a 2 year working holdiay visa (where you're not supposed to do professional work) and he ended up staying six years, paying tax the whole way through.

Yes, the UK does need a revamp of its immigration laws. Whether they need to scrap the ancestry visa thing is another matter, the number of people travelling on it would have to be decreasing year after year.

Looking at the events after Cyclone Katrina, and the way the government looks to the US for ideological inspiration, it's a fair question.

The way the US has responded to the disaster has drawn attention to the type of society that the US has become. It begs the question whether we are headed down the same path.

Will the enactment of US style labour laws, and the cuts in welfare that are sure to follow, create the large social underclass so evident in New Orleans?

Will the cost of the government's obsession to participate in US foreign adventures, while cutting other government expenditure to allow the provision of tax cuts, cause a lack of planning against the inevitable, and stymie our response when the inevitable happens?

Will our government become so bankrupt that it will "never, ever ask for a shared sacrifice?"

And lastly, will this event will be a wake up call for the conservative forces who think our social, political and economic structures should uncritically emulate the US?

To the last question ... I'd like to think so, but I'm not holding my breath.

It's been another hectic week with no time for the blog. Have been rearranging the IT at home, installing a new, faster Linux box for me, and upgrades for the server, the kids and SWMBO. Lots of software reinstalls accompanied by a few problems, now ironed out. Fingers crossed.

The shocking events in London have been dominating my reading this week. It's all the more poignant as I lived in the city for three years during the late seventies and early eighties. Since then I've been back several times for business and pleasure. Must have ridden the Underground hundreds of times. The thought of a large explosion in those narrow, deep tunnels fills me with horror.

It's predictable that after an event like this there are calls for ever more draconian measures to keep the fanatics in check, countered by a less noisy crowd warning of the dangers of impacted personal freedoms from those measures. It's the usual conservative vs liberal thing ... the conservatives feel that the correct response is to show no weakness, that person privacy and freedoms should not hinder the authorities in policing terrorism, and brook no thought that terrorist actions in London or elsewhere have anything to do with international events.

John Howard has, at last, stated that the government won't let filthy lucre prevent us from decently treating the Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin as he seeks political asylum.

Mr Howard says Mr Chen's case will be assessed on its merits.

"It's not going to be influenced by the amount of iron ore or coal we sell to China," Mr Howard said.

"It will not be influenced by trade and economic considerations.

"I've heard a lot of nonsense talk over the past little while about this."

Is it any wonder that there was "a lot of nonsense talk" over this issue? The government seemed to be in a state of paralysis when the story broke. This observer certainly thought that the authorities were more concerned over the Chinese government's reaction than Mr Chen's wellbeing. They did, after all, phone the Chinese embassy when he made his original application.

One would be forgiven in thinking that the Liberal party had their pollster do a quick survey to confirm that the electorate really does not think it would be nice to send him back, prompting public assurances by Tony Abbott that this won't happen ...

Mr Chen is in Australia. He is being dealt with in accordance with the ordinary processes of Australian immigration law and he is at no risk of being sent back to China.

If only it was so easy for kids in detention.

Chen first applied for asylum 13 days ago on 26 May. Today's assurance came five days after the issue became public. Makes you wonder what would have happened to Chen if the issue had remained secret.

So the European 'Constitution' has been knocked back by two of it's founding members, "The French slapped the left cheek of Europe, the Dutch have now slapped the right," plunging Brussels into chaos and the future of Europe into confusion. Those looking to the future and hoping for Europe to be a more 'approachable' super-power holding the US and China in sway may be disappointed at this apparent arrow through the heel of its progress, but I feel inclined to disagree.

It's interesting to note that of the countries who had already ratified the 'constitution' (I keep doing that because it wasn't really a constitution, more of a collection of treaties to be ratified, apparently unreadable) didn't do so through referendums but through parliamentary debates, which brings me to this statement, "The EU has to face the problem of the mismatch between the views of the people and the views of the politicians." Naturally a problem which I think places other than the EU suffer from.

There's a theory that researchers and academics should be forced to teach, with the idea of keeping their feet on the ground, so that they remain connected with not only the practical elements of their field but also with reality. Perhaps the European Parliament should look at something similar, with 25 separate member states, that's a lot of different types of toes to step on.

It's not as depressing as all that, really, I think it's fantastic that the people of France and the Netherlands gave their governments a kick up the behind and said, 'get your feet back on the ground, Europe's important, but you forget that we are Europe,' or something like that. For starters, they could "go back to the drawing board with the aim of producing a much more understandable and accessible text." which would be a good start, and maybe listening to their constituencies would be another.

Tony Blair's election victory completed the trifecta with him being the last of the main protagonists of the Iraqi war to regain office. It wasn't much of a choice for the UK voters. The economy's going well under the Labour administration, and the Tory opposition was always vocal in its support for the UK's involvement in Iraq, not to mention all the bad memories from when they were last in government. Is it any wonder that around half the population didn't bother to vote?

The UK population's disengagement from politics shown in this election, and similar disinterest displayed in many other western countries, begs the question whether it would be possible to have fair and effective government without the downside of the political process. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have government without career politicians, political parties, and tedious election campaigns?

Yes, I'm dreaming, but I promise I'll wake up soon.

There was a concept described in the comic book movie "Star Ship Troopers" where, to gain 'citizenship' and thereby, the right to vote, you had to join and do time in the military forces. Obligations were met to gain the privilege of having a say in the way the place is run. Yes, our world is not threatened by giant ant like aliens, and I'm not suggesting that we should be encouraging the population into uniform, but perhaps there's something in the thought that we could encourage ordinary people to take on the obligation to actually be the government, rather than just vote for a bunch of professionals to do the job for us.

Imagine the population could be encouraged to register in a government ballot to select members of parliament. If your number comes up, you must spend a fixed term as a member of parliament. The ballot would happen every year, and the proportion of those whose terms have completed would leave to be replaced by the new members. If the parliamentary term is for three years, then one third of the members leave every year. Parliamentarians would only ever server one term.

There'd be no election campaigns, parties or professional pollies. The ballot, being random, would ensure that the proportions of views and attitudes within the parliament would be proportional to the general population .... well, proportional to those who were willing to participate, that is. Having a fresh influx every year would make it difficult for 'parties' to form. Decisions wouldn't be made with the constant thought that the law makers need to be re-elected at some stage in the future. Every vote on the floor of the parliament would, in effect, be a conscience vote. The speaker would be an outsider, voted in or out by a two thirds majority of the parliament, and have the necessary powers to control the Parliament.

The downside, of course, is that the depth of experience in government would be low, creating the risk of poor decisions. As much as we hate the idea that current politicians always have their eyes on the opinion polls, it does keep them in check. Perhaps the whole thing would turn out to be an unworkable rabble. It is a figment of my warped imagination, after all!

Maybe a better solution is a hybrid government. The professionals in the lower house, and the senate being populated by members selected as described above. A proper house of review ........

Remember the title of the blog!

Any thoughts on the way the political process could be improved to increase the interest and participation of ordinary voter?

It's been an important 12 months for the Coalition of the willing. Howard, Bush and Blair, all up for re-election, in the face of having supposedly lied to their populaces, of having supposedly gone to war against the wishes of the majority, all three get re-elected comfortably.

Frankly, I'm amazed, disgusted and then again, not at all surprised. I want to say democracy is dead, if it ever existed; I want to say freedom is an illusion; i want to say that nothing will change if we don't stop whingeing and don't starting doing, that sitting around holding highbrow conversations and debating with our peers is useless, that the power is with the people, as it always has been, and that if nothing's being done to change them, to open their eyes, if we don't stop thinking about ourselves then we might as well be lying on our backs in the grass and spitting into the air; this is what I want to say, but what's the point when nobody's listening?

As quickly as I sort things out in my head the situation changes. Just as well I've strong toes. A busy five days in Taiwan-China relations:

First off the cap an official KMT Beijing agreement released by the heads of both governments, typical political fodder, but some encouraging language for progress such as:

"Cross-strait ties are now at a crucial point in historical development; the two sides should not fall into a vicious circle of confrontation but instead enter a virtuous circle of cooperation, seek together opportunities for the peaceful and steady development of cross-strait ties, trust and help each other, and create a new situation of peaceful win-win, so as to bring about brilliant and splendid prospects for the Chinese nation."

Okay, so it's a little pretty, but these words on paper were followed up quickly by both sides of the strait. The Taiwanese President, Chen Shui-bian, on Sunday urged the Chinese government to open talks with his administration, while the Taiwanese opposition leader is touring China. (and being treated like the head of state - Beijing's strategy has been to court opposition politicians). Then, yesterday, China began a series of goodwill gestures to Taiwan, including a couple of giant pandas and the lifting of a ban on tourists.

Encouraging stuff, slightly debunking my warmongering paranoia yesterday, oh well, maybe I can pick up some work as a reverse soothsayer.