The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rethinking Australian foreign policy in a post-Bush world > Comments

Rethinking Australian foreign policy in a post-Bush world : Comments

By Ben Eltham, published 20/11/2007

Both sides are refusing to acknowledge that we will soon be faced with some very difficult strategic foreign policy challenges.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
Foreign policy post-Bush confronts Plerdsus’ grim hosts of reality: nearer, clearer, more deadly than before!
We could at least stop putting the telescope to the blind eye. In fact no telescope is needed for those not already blinded by dogma.

Let’s start by giving the full treatment, and more, to what we signed up to (together with the rest of the world) at Cairo in 1994: limiting our own population, and contributing adequately to assistance for developing countries to do the same. Education and emancipation of women underpinned that – providing them with the ability to control their own fertility rather than being enslaved to un-wished for pregnancies. Allow foreign policy to be influenced more by the Australian Parliament’s Parliamentary Group on Population and Development rather than by some personal religious dogma seeping out from under the carpet from Cabinet. Help the throttle to be eased off the population express.

Follow that up with declared and practical acknowledgement that the world’s resources are finite; that treating others as “untermensch” in accessing scarce commodities is hardly nice or lawful, and counterproductive in the long term, as it is for “leibensraum”. Make part of that a demonstration of a desire to live within the limits of our own landscape and climate rather than push them until we completely flog the place to death.

Face up to the problems inherent in economic growth, which breeds boom and bust. “We have never had it so good”. Whacko – why make it “gooder”? Put a McDonald’s in every suburb instead of just every second one; to admire even more the escalated value of our houses (heaven help the non-owners)? There are economists who believe in a steady-state economy – put them at the helm. The HIA, Property Council, etc. might weep a bit, but there is viability in it. Now that economic system would be a great Foreign Affairs talking point, and we would get brownie (greenie?) points from it across the world.

All worth trying. Plerdsus’ four horsemen might gallop over us more gently if we make a start.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 22 November 2007 12:39:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You excite me, Aussie mates, in this latest OLO get-together.

Just a retired old Cockie aspiring, but possibly my German Irish Welsh heritage has made me a natural rebel, helped by the part-German mother that we always had our farmhouse overloaded with interesting books. Even those of my stepfather, a keen reader of Edgar Wallace.

But still do feel us Aussies are champion innovators, not only the Sunshine stump-jump plough, but it was our ideas that made up the huge combine harvester that we now import from Americana.

Latest in the field was the Victa Mower now its brethren all world-wide.

So why what not leave the Yanks behind in a recipe for a better world. Though we do still need them, why not pluck up the courage to tell 'em a few things? - as we did with our rural gear, why not use the wonderful knowledge of our history going back to the Greeks, why not use it to push more sensible ideas for a global future.

Not an erzatz world democracy as the White House neo-cons preach of so much, with Americana always holding the four Ace cards, building up a Nuclear fortress more to protect itself than make way for an unselfish world.

Further, as far as Climate Change is concerned, we have Western Australia, which both Vlamning and Dampier termed A Land in Need, but the perfect spot on earth to prove what commonsense innovation can achieve.

Indidently it was myself with help from Curtin Uni' which produced a series on WA, called a Land in Need - information of which is available on Google.

Cheers - BB, WA
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 22 November 2007 1:15:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Foreign policy of the USA seems distasteful to the majority of humanity.
I would ask who formulates it? One correspondent notes not the electorate in any direct and informed sense.
Numerous authors find the F.P. particularly in America, has been hijacked by interest groups. Prof Falk writing an introduction to the Contra affair goes so far as to describe them as fascist, but the point is by particular groups be they PNAC, the Poe or Israel.
Two questions arise is this correct and how would the electorate be involved?
Most are not equipped and recent events have shown how malleable under pressure of the Media it is. So much so the N Y Times issued an apology well sort of in 2004 and I think some Aust media outlets did similarly. But not only was the media itself partisan it was apparently suborned by the interests of the powerful.
Is F.P. about national state interests regardless of other concerns and can this remain so?
Increasing limitation of resources without alternative the economists happy retort to most claim requires co operation or theft. Theft by force of arms seems not only unproductive but fraught with Nuclear options as well as bankrupcy.
Granted such fears about new weapons have been expressed in the past but Nuclear perhaps is different. (The new explosive bombs of Russia reputed to be as powerful as nuclear?)
Does F.P. have to be based on the expectation of threat? Or is threat invoked to provide platform for hubris and wealth?
If we seek to improve the F.P. of the world and the standing of the UN, presumably seeing it as a world court then the power of the ICC and respect for it must be enhanced.
One way would be to implement prosecution for war crimes. In many countries the method is incorporated in the national law and the US is currently oscillating in its desire to impeach as is possible under the constitution.
Can national sovereignty cope with the coming world problems ?
Posted by untutored mind, Friday, 23 November 2007 3:00:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy