As an American, I found Mr. Kevin's post interesting and thought-provoking. I always wondered why Australia supported U.S. policy (which has been often flawed) so closely. The near unanimous disagreement with Mr. Kevin's article gave me the answer: Aussies are almost as arrogant as Americans. Many Americans are now recognizing that being a military superpower is not enough. Among the talking points of two persons who hope to be our next President is to re-establish America's former reputation of being on the high moral ground and not rattling the sword at every opportunity. The UN is far from perfect but it is the best thing that we have to maintain stability in this troubled world. Reaching out to others and not clubbing them on the head could permit us to reach higher ground. Some of us in Amewrica see the handwriting on the wall. We can not continue to "control" the world while we get deeper and deeper in debt by borrowing from China and other countries who have a clear perspective of where they are headed. We appreciate the support of the Aussies but do you think that your blind support is in your best interest?

Marilyn, I am very pleased that you “almost agree” with me. I must say, I nearly fell awff m’ chair!

“…but again you are treating refugees like migrants or chess pieces to be pushed around as we see fit…”

I wouldn’t put it like that, but yes we have done a lot of strategic manoeuvring with asylum seekers and within them, those that were found to be refugees. Of course we did. The whole issue needed to be managed very carefully.

How would you have handled it?

For all of our recent exchanges on other threads, I still don’t have much of a feeling at all of how you would have dealt with it, apart from what has appeared to be your desire to see refugees move completely freely across borders, regardless of numbers. That can’t be the case if you are in any way agreeing with me now. Could you please clarify your views on this. Thanks.

Tony Kevin is spot-on with his review of Kevin Rudd’s stance in relation to the US, China and the UN. I fully support signs of change toward a more multilateralist line.

Admittedly the UN as presently constituted is sometimes corrupting, bureaucratic, and ineffective, but for all its shortcomings continues to play a vital role in a rapidly globalising world.

Alexander Downer, former Minister for Foreign Affairs is on record as having attempted to convince the Coalition Cabinet of the need for Australia to play a more productive role in the UN, only to have his views rejected by John Howard.

Howard’s problem stemmed from his attachment to an idealized vision of Australia as he remembered it. In many ways his views were hopeless outdated but were reassuring to white Australians increasingly threatened by an influx of refugees and migrants from cultures different to ours.

As scientists accumulated the evidence that greenhouse gas emissions imperil millions of lives Howard followed the lead taken by President Bush who stated: “We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America”. “The American lifestyle is not up for negotiation”.

Australia’s too close an alignment with Bush Administration policies has made us many unnecessary enemies. Our support for the US war against Iraq has cost us dearly, while trade policies pursued by the US is driving millions of impoverished farmers in developing countries ever deeper into poverty.

Rudd appears to be clearing the way for Australia to take a more involved and responsible path in world affairs. My response to this promising start is to wish “more power to him”.

Austria and New Zealand are just two other developed economies, besides Australia, bidding for a place on the UN Security Council.

Austria has a good advantage because of what Austria and her citizenship has achieved together, in rebuilding her country, since WW2.

Citizens of Austria, unlike those in many western economics, are highly sensitive, earnest, utterly aware of the need for world balance. Through economic capitalism, Austrians demand their government be respectful in the way it addresses social justice, through the Law and on Human Rights. For an Austrian, ‘small is beautiful’. Cultural diversity is everything. Their citizen concerns that the “other” is defended. It’s a fabric that builds that economy. An economy that pro-actively participates in advocacy of those disadvantaged people’s in “other” cultures.

Under Helen Clark, New Zealand has a similar agenda. Citizens of New Zealand are getting there. As a young developed nation, NZ has embraced the idea of “capacity building” through e-commerce and e-democracy. In the past two decades New Zealand has shown the world that war, and the threat of war is “no game” when the crimes underlying the causes of war; dominant groups over-powering the lawful citizen rights of minority groups, where the minority groups (fractionised) have often poor access to land/housing, health, education, employment, the press and representation through the law and their government.

After WW2 the Marshall Plan and Human Rights was to be the bases of a collective knowledge learnt. The “cost of civilian life” lost during WW2, was supposed to be the sacred memory that we promised ourselves “not to forget”.

To dig deeper, one might compare the technical aspects of the"Treaty of Versailles". Look where we are today? Is it a case that mirrors us as a wheel rotating through time, a world human race mislaid, forgetting the relevance of all life, lost in our recent and ancient past.

Australians need to do more than ‘navel graze’.

Be it Zimbabwe, Darfur/Sudan-Congo, Kosovo, Burma- Tibet, the children of Iraq, Afghanistan, and all in-between… we are all farmers…

What would you do if you were in the UN?

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Ludwig, refugees are allowed to freely cross borders. That is the point. To deny them that right is to be complicit in the torture, genocide and ethnic cleansing of human beings.

We don't have to treat them with such disrespect do we? After all 5 million people travel here every year, they are not really screened by anyone and about 60,000 or so every year choose not to leave.

We have enshrined the right to seek and enjoy asylum into our law, then ignored it.

Kapeesh?

And the clown that says other nations are copying our "border" protection is a fool. We don't have any borders, we have a very long coastline which makes it very difficult to even get here.

Well Kevin did you deliberately provoke?
One really must not offend the nationalist sentiment so fostered by Johnny, flags and all. Pastors give the line on ethical behaviour.
I largely agree with your thesis and I am sure those people berating the UN, blame someone!, will soon realise that we are all members of the UN and if the UN is unsatisfactory it is our fault.
Australia could have stood aside from Iraq and offered advice and counsel but chose to participate in an illegal war contrary to the UN.
We may have abided by some of the agreement on refugees but not all, and denigration of refugees was churlish, the behaviour of small minds. Our method of advertising the dangers of becoming a refugee cruel and against the humanitarian use of created law.
We do indeed have some apologising to do