http://cjneil.tigblog.org/ What's on the minds of young leaders from around the globe? en-us http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/360629
it does raise some serious questions about the future structure of our economy, the models of economic development and how sustainable they are, and gives further drive to changing our tax system here - taking bads not goods i think! and using the money we are making from all of these minerals to give ourselves some serious soft and hard infrastructure for the next 100 + years ... such as education, health care, low carbon energy, radically transformed buildings and housing and urban set ups, state of the art public transport infrastructure, etc.

we can't get sucked in to allowing these minerals - which belong to the nation - to make a small number of people very rich. we need to ensure we get rents from them to fund nation building.

and let's add elimination of poverty, homelessness, and the indigenous health gap to things to be funded!

http://business.smh.com.au/everythings-coming-up-roses/20080423-27xr.html?page=1]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:07:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/360629 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/357143
April 14, 2008 - 7:49AM

The World Bank has called for the international community to beef up its response to soaring food prices that have led to starvation and are threatening political stability in the developing world.

Many ministers gathered for the World Bank's annual spring meeting also raised concerns over the increased use of bio-fuels, which share much of the blame for the lack of food supplies, as an alternative energy source.

A joint statement by the ministers urged countries to meet a $US500 million ($A536.88 million) aid shortfall at the World Food Program to help the world's poorest regions, where hundreds of thousands are threatened with starvation.

Global food prices have jumped 83 per cent over the last three years, and World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that the crisis had already toppled a government in Haiti and could push ever more people into poverty.

"We have to put our money where our mouth is now, so that we can put food into hungry mouths," Zoellick said. "It is as stark as that."

Many countries put the blame for the food crisis squarely on the increased production of certain bio-fuels that use food crops as an alternative energy source.

The United States, Europe and other regions have boosted their production of bio-fuels in recent years to reduce their dependence on imported oil and cut greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

Indian Finance Minister P Chidambaram called on industrial nations to cut off all subsidies for such bio-fuel production.

"In a world where there is hunger and poverty, there is no policy justification for diverting food crops towards bio-fuels," Chidambaram said. "Converting food into fuel is neither good policy for the poor nor for the environment."

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the World Bank's sister-lender the International Monetary Fund, acknowledged the impact of bio-fuels was a serious worry for many developing countries, and said that some ministers had labelled their production a "crisis of humanity" in informal talks.

"It shows how strong this concern is," Strauss-Kahn said in a press briefing with Zoellick after the bank's Development Committee meeting.

Strauss-Kahn also warned that the food crisis threatened to derail all progress made in reducing poverty in Africa and other regions.

"All what has been done can be destroyed very rapidly" by rising food prices, he said.

Zoellick warned last week that the food crisis could set back poverty reduction in the world's poorest nations by seven years.

British Chancellor of the Exchequer Alastair Darling said that a key element of Sunday's meeting involved how to "mitigate the negative impact of high commodity prices on the poor in particular."

He called for a "fully coordinated (international) response to the market turbulence and commodity prices."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown this week sent a letter to his Japanese counterpart urging that the food crisis be a central focus of the Group of Eight industrial nations summit in July, which will be hosted by Japan.

Hundreds of thousands of people are facing starvation, and 33 countries are threatened with social unrest, the World Bank said this week.

The World Bank on Saturday promised a 10-million-dollar grant to subsidise food in Haiti, where a week of riots led to the sacking of the government of Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis.

Nigerian Finance Minister Shamsuddeen Usman called on the World Bank and international community to "urgently support" efforts to meet the food needs of the most vulnerable people, the majority of whom are in Africa.]]> Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:09:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/357143 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/334837
cameron

+++++

Going green for cost of a phone call
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/going-green-for-cost-of-a-phone-call/2008/02/14/1202760494380.html

Marian Wilkinson Environment Editor
February 15, 2008

FOR the cost of a daily local phone call, Australians could cut their greenhouse gas emissions to the same ambitious levels now being considered by the most advanced European countries, an economic study has found.

The report by the management consultants McKinsey and Company, advisers to some of the world's biggest corporations and institutions, says that by 2020 Australia could cut its greenhouse emissions to 30 per cent below 1990 levels for a cost of less than 80 cents a day for each household - or $290 per year. Over the same period household income is expected to rise by more than $20,000 per year.

The cuts could be made without a big technological breakthrough or dramatic lifestyle changes, the report finds, and by 2030, emissions could be slashed up to 60 per cent.

"This is not daydreaming. This is a fact-based analysis aimed at setting the goal posts," one of the report's authors, Stephan Gorner, told the Herald.

The report, An Australian Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction, pre-empts the Federal Government's own studies on the cost of cutting greenhouse gases by Ross Garnaut and the Treasury. Professor Garnaut is not due to release a draft of his report until June and yesterday the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said his department's modelling would not be available until then.

The Rudd Government has consistently refused to set its 2020 target for cutting greenhouse gases until it receives the Garnaut report. It has committed only to a 2050 target of cutting emissions by 60 per cent from 2000 levels.

The McKinsey authors have briefed the offices of the Treasurer; the Climate Change

Minister, Penny Wong; and Professor Garnaut on their report, which stresses the need for urgent action to achieve the cuts.

"Significantly reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions is achievable and affordable but requires rapid action", the report concludes. It notes, "The scale of changes required is substantial."

Mr Gorner, who came to McKinsey's Sydney office from Germany, rejected suggestions that the report was too optimistic but said: "You have to act now to make it happen".

"There are likely to be winners and losers," he acknowledged

The report investigates more than 100 opportunities to cut greenhouse gases across the economy, including stepping up investment in wind power, increasing regulations to slow land clearing, using tougher regulations to lift energy efficiency, speeding up new technologies through tax breaks and subsidies, lifting fuel efficiency standards, increasing the use of biofuels and increasing the use of renewable energy.

Reducing emissions in the building sector, cutting emissions from air-conditioners, hot water systems, lighting and appliances will be the most economic way of cutting emissions because the savings to the consumer will pay for the changes, the report finds.

The heavily polluting power industry will need to radically cut its emissions, which are soaring. Without any new action, Australian emissions are set to rise to 127 per cent of 1990 levels in 2020 rather than fall.

Controversially, the report assumes that clean coal technology will be commercially available for coal-fired power stations by 2030, and two-thirds of the industry will be using it. As yet there is no clean coal plant in commercial operation. The report acknowledges that, without clean coal, the cost of slashing emissions by 60 per cent by 2030 will increase by almost a third.

Alternatively, the use of renewable energy will need to increase greatly.]]> Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:51:00 EST http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/334837 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/329905 The Herald Sun

January 31, 2008 12:00am

DESPITE optimism at the Bali climate change conference when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd committed Australia to the Kyoto Protocol, there are worrying signs the Government will continue to drag its feet in setting clear carbon-emission targets.

After receiving a standing ovation from the international community at Bali, Rudd disappointed many delegates by saying Australia would not sign binding emissions targets until he had received advice from climate-change adviser Ross Garnaut.

But Prof Garnaut has now made clear his preference for long-term targets over short-term goals, stating he would favor a 2050 emissions strategy over the widely accepted 2020 targets.

Worryingly, Garnaut appears to be bringing an economist's logic to what is an urgent environmental imperative for action.

Every credible piece of scientific advice we now have, including that of Australia's peak scientific body, the CSIRO, tells us climate change is accelerating faster than previously feared.

Under the Garnaut model, gases are to be reduced over 40 years rather than adhering to short-term targets.

He also supports letting the market decide how quickly to cut emissions.

"You have to ask a question about how strongly you focus on particular dates and how much you look at the overall impact over a number of years," Garnaut says.

Of course, it is important to ensure the Australian economy is able to deal with cuts in emissions in the short and long terms.

But Garnaut's model is already sounding too much like a convenient excuse to buy more time and is radically out of step with other international climate policies.

In New Zealand, for example, Prime Minister Helen Clark has received a United Nations Environmental Program award for climate change leadership because of her adopted policies, including an emissions trading scheme and to sharply reduce dependence on fossil fuels, as well as a national energy efficiency and conservation strategy.

Or compare Australia's reticence with the EU's strong target strategy and budgetary framework to meet them without damaging their economic prosperity.

Legislation has been drafted to meet the EU's commitment to reduce its overall greenhouse targets by "at least" 20 per cent by 2020.

These far-reaching measures include national targets for the expanded use of renewable energy and the compulsory purchase by companies of carbon dioxide emission permits.

These are steps Australia must be take in the short term if we are to move beyond the symbolism of Kyoto.

Prof Garnaut's long-term reduction plan will not provide the incentive for sharp emission reductions needed in the next five to 10 years if we are to avoid bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and crippling droughts.

While it is vital to protect the economy, the inconvenient truth is that this will mean little when the the worst impacts of climate change really hit home.

James Norman is a Melbourne
journalist and author]]> Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:20:00 EST http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/329905 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/280393
++++++++++

And now the $64b question: The cost?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/economy/bpeter-hartcherb/2007/11/12/1194766588764.html

Peter Hartcher
November 13, 2007

WHEN the Reserve Bank announced yesterday that it was worried about a dangerous outbreak of inflation, it must have been fervently hoping that John Howard would take the microphone and declare "me too".

Instead, the Prime Minister stood on stage in Brisbane and gave the central bank a whole new reason to fret about inflation.

He formally launched the Coalition's campaign with a record blast of new spending.

Just 2 hours after the Reserve Bank put up a giant sign saying "slow the growth", Howard appeared on a set framed by his election slogan "Go for Growth".

And go for it he did.

Howard's 2004 campaign launch is famous for his promise of $6 billion in new spending in a half-hour speech, committing taxpayers' funds at a rate of $200 million a minute.

Now Howard has set the new record, however, at $9.5 billion in 40 minutes, a rate of $237.5 million a minute. "Clearly the words from the Reserve Bank have had no impact whatsoever," observed the chief economist of the ANZ Bank, Saul Eslake.

It was a performance reminiscent of the comedian Drew Carey's line: "I may not be a very good lover, but at least I'm quick."

Howard knew he shouldn't

have - whereas last time he proudly announced the cost from the stage, yesterday he discreetly left most of the dollar amounts out of his speech.

Times have changed. Australia is in the midst of an inflationary outbreak and approaching an inflation emergency. Yet, like an addict, trying to conceal his habit yet compelled to act on it, he went ahead and promised the spending anyway.

At 11.30am, when the Reserve issued its statement that "both headline and underlying inflation are likely to exceed 3 per cent", the legal speed limit, Coalition election spending promises already stood at $55 billion for the next four years.

By the time Howard finished speaking, he had added a further $9.5 billion. So now the $64 billion question is: How high will rates have to go to tamp down the inflationary overheating that Howard is stoking in his frenetic effort to get himself re-elected?

An economist at the investment bank UBS, Scott Haslem, has calculated that three rate rises in this financial year - the last two plus the one expected in February - will depress demand in the economy by $9.1 billion.

At the same time, the tax cuts taking effect next year are expected to add about $9.7 billion. In other words, all else being equal, the Reserve Bank is effectively putting up rates to negate the effect of the tax cuts.

Howard, trusting that we are too stupid to get it, just keeps feeding this circular loop of money into the system, hoping we swoon with gratitude, not noticing that the Reserve Bank is obliged to take it all out again.

Ever-rising interest rates mean more than that, however. They attract huge sums of foreign capital chasing higher yields. That helps push up the dollar, and that, in turn, punishes exporters.

Rising rates also ratchet up the risk that the entire economy will be brought to a standstill.

Still, you have to give Howard credit for sheer chutzpah, a hide thicker than Jessie the elephant's. He interspersed his recklessness with stony-faced warnings that Labor would pose a threat to economic growth.

Labor is no better. It will spend a tad less and pronounce itself to be "more responsible". But it's unlikely to be any worse.

As Eslake says, "even if Labor only matched half the Government's numbers, they are so big that while both sides profess to be worried about interest rates, neither side is prepared to do anything meaningful about them."
]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:33:00 EST http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/280393 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/275501
from the article - full text below:

"... there are few hints of a counter-culture among today's young adults. More than half of the under-30s agree with the statement "I enjoy clothes shopping," and more than a quarter agree with the statement "I was born to shop". Almost as many would eat out every night, if they could afford it. Not surprisingly, they are much more likely than their elders to go to the cinema, eat out, go to a nightclub, buy fast food, go to a pub or even visit a music store. They like to spend their money on travel and technology, particularly mobile phones, which will come as no surprise to anyone, especially the phone companies, which are making lots of money out of them. The Morgan research finds that 91 per cent of the under-30s have mobile phones (perhaps the more surprising finding is that 9 per cent of them do not) and that they spend $54 a month on them, compared with $45 for 30- to 44-year-olds. They also like to buy computers, and plasma and LCD televisions. And travel."

cameron



Pain in the assets: generation Y's lost years
http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/gen-ys-lost-years/2007/11/04/1194117879837.html

November 5, 2007

Young adults are missing out on benefits enjoyed by their predecessors. Mark Coultan reports.

It's an integral part of being a parent: you make sacrifices to give your children the best chance to succeed in life. And there is an expectation that each succeeding generation will take those chances and be happier, better educated and better off.

But what if the behaviour of one generation - however inadvertent - caused a new generation to be worse off?

What if today's young adults, the so-called generation Y, were finding it tougher than their predecessors, generation X, while at the same time baby boomers grew ever richer, using their wealth to lock their children out of the housing market?

That is exactly what appears to be happening. Not only are people under 30 earning less (in relative terms) than generation Xers did when they were the same age, astronomical prices mean they are increasingly locked out of home ownership. They are in danger of becoming the renting generation.

(There is no clear definition of the label, but generation Y is vaguely used to define those born in the 1980s and '90s. Baby boomers are those born between the Second World War and 1961 (sometimes 1964) and Generation X is the period in between.)

Every week Roy Morgan Research knocks on Australians' doors and asks questions.

Apart from the well-known questions about who those surveyed would vote for, the researchers ask a host of other questions: which bank they use, how big is their mortgage, how much superannuation do they have?

They have been doing so for years, and not just in Australia. They also collect data from the United States, Britain, New Zealand and, in recent years, Indonesia. The result is a treasure-trove of information about the way Australians think and behave, both over time and in comparison with people overseas.

The researchers have now decided to bring some of this information together to provide a more accurate picture of trends over a 10-year period.

Their first report, State of the Nation, focuses on housing affordability. Right in the middle of an election campaign in which interest rates are a big issue, and with the Reserve Bank tipped to raise rates again this week, it is very timely.

The data draws a disturbing picture of Australians under 30 (which, for the purposes of this story, we will call generation Y). This generation is doing exactly what everybody says is the right thing: they are getting a good education.

More Australians than ever are gaining university degrees; up from 15 per cent 10 years ago to 23 per cent today.

But university education delays entry to the workforce, which could account for the relative drop in income that Morgan found for this age group.

While the average income of all Australians has increased by more than half in the past eight years, the income of Australians under 30 has only increased by about 40 per cent. People over 60 had the greatest rise, with an increase of more than 60 per cent, reflecting people staying longer in the workforce and the power of their investment income.

While increased education among younger people is undoubtedly a good thing, and normally considered a key to increasing income over a lifetime, Morgan speculates that there may be less of an income premium attached to higher education than previously, because the graduates are competing against each other for jobs.

It notes that while part-time and casual work has increased across all age groups, it was most pronounced among the under-30s. That makes sense for people who are still studying, but it may also reflect, says Morgan, "increased difficulty in finding stable, long-term employment."

While their income (relative to everybody else's income) has declined, at the same time house prices have skyrocketed.

Morgan finds that the value of the average mortgaged home has increase from $170,000 in 1997 to $434,000. But the value of a home owned by someone under 30 has not increased by as much as homes owned by older people, suggesting generation Y has had to settle for properties of relatively lower value to get into the market.

And while they are buying cheaper houses, they are borrowing more. Those who have stretched themselves to buy a home owe, on average, more than $200,000. Generation Xers owe $179,000 and baby boomers owe $128,000.

The equity that people own in their homes increases as they age, but the 10-year trend shows while young people own about the same proportion of their home as they did 10 years ago, older age groups have benefitted from house price inflation to gain a larger share of their homes.

Meanwhile, baby boomers continue to strengthen their grip on society, even as they age. Ten years ago those aged 45 to 59 owned about a third of the money in bank deposits, managed investments and superannuation. Today they own 42.6 per cent of those assets.

But generation X has the most debt. Thirty to 44-year-olds, who represent 27 per cent of the population, have 46.7 per cent of the credit card and loan debt.

Even here baby boomers are breaking the mould. Where once people in middle age had paid off their mortgages, these days paying off the mortgage is a reason to borrow more, for extensions, an investment property or shares.

Today almost half (49 per cent) of boomers have a home loan, while 10 years ago just over a third of people aged from 45 to 59 did. Even seniors have not kicked the debt habit, with the proportion of the over-60s who still have not paid off the mortgage almost doubling to 9 per cent.

But the story is not just about one generation using its purchasing power to elbow a younger one out of the market.

While members of generation Y have less money than their predecessors, they like to spend it. In many ways, today's young people have more in common with the baby boomers than with the generation between them.

In fact, some commentators have dubbed them the echo boomers. Perhaps living in a period of low unemployment has given them a similar outlook on life to those who grew up in the full-employment 1960s, when a job would be waiting after the obligatory overseas adventure.

But there are few hints of a counter-culture among today's young adults. More than half of the under-30s agree with the statement "I enjoy clothes shopping," and more than a quarter agree with the statement "I was born to shop". Almost as many would eat out every night, if they could afford it.

Not surprisingly, they are much more likely than their elders to go to the cinema, eat out, go to a nightclub, buy fast food, go to a pub or even visit a music store.

They like to spend their money on travel and technology, particularly mobile phones, which will come as no surprise to anyone, especially the phone companies, which are making lots of money out of them.

The Morgan research finds that 91 per cent of the under-30s have mobile phones (perhaps the more surprising finding is that 9 per cent of them do not) and that they spend $54 a month on them, compared with $45 for 30- to 44-year-olds.

They also like to buy computers, and plasma and LCD televisions. And travel.

In this respect generation Y is more like the baby boomers when they were in the bloom of their youth. In fact, today's young want to do what their parents did in the 1960s: leave the country.
]]> Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:03:00 EST http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/275501 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/272055 i could punch rudd in the head. howard is not economically responsible and there was (and still is) an opportunity to demonstrate what good economics might really look like.

at least put some of this money aside for the massive shock that will accompany climate change adaptation!!!

read this one too now ...

The inflation monster turns on the hand that fed it
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/24/1192941153419.html

"But should we be feeling sorry for John Howard and Peter Costello? My response is no. This Government has been feeding inflation for years - giving its budget surpluses to consumers on the one hand and throwing caution to the wind. They have therefore no excuse to complain about the fact that this creates inflationary pressure."

Throwing more fuel on the fire
http://www.smh.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/bpeter-hartcherb/2007/10/24/1192941154799.html

Peter Hartcher
October 25, 2007

COMMENT

THE economy is an inflationary powderkeg waiting to explode. So what are our national political leaders doing? John Howard and Kevin Rudd are frantically packing in more gunpowder.

Australia is living through its fifth commodities boom since World War II. The other four all ended badly. "This commodities boom dwarfs all the others since the Korean War," says HSBC's chief economist, John Edwards.

"There is only one risk to the expansion, and it's huge - that we experience rising core inflation at a time when we have an economy at full capacity, and growth, if anything, is accelerating."

That is exactly what's happening. The lesson of history? "It really says we should be very careful and restrained," Edwards says.

Instead, Howard and Rudd are pledging to add extra fuel to the inflationary explosion. Let's be clear - they are increasing the odds this boom will end in a bust.

How dumb do they think the electorate is? Answer: pretty dumb. The leaders of both parties are talking economic responsibility while they busily pursue economic populism.

They are enticing us to the ballot box, trying to mesmerise us with a fistful of dollars, in the full knowledge that those very dollars will threaten the economy once the election has passed.

One frustration of this blatant irresponsibility is that there is a simple way the politicians can give us the tax cuts they are so desperate to press on us, and still pursue good policy.

All they need do is pay the tax cuts into our superannuation accounts. That way the money is not spent in an inflationary way in the next couple of years, but stored up and invested for the future.

It's a good way to help prepare for the ageing of the population, and it boosts national savings. But no, like trained monkeys that know only one trick, all they can do is keep doing what they've done before.

After Howard announced his plan to offer an extra $34 billion in tax cuts over the next three years, three things happened.

First, the futures market re-evaluated from 70 per cent to 85 per cent the likelihood that the Reserve Bank would have to raise interest rates over the year ahead to contain inflation.

Second, the headmaster of the global economic system, the International Monetary Fund, warned Australia to restrain spending to contain inflation.

And third, Rudd ignored both of these and went ahead and aped Howard's inflationary tax cuts. Yes, Labor did return to the surplus $200 million more than the Government plans to do over three years. This allows Labor to claim it's being more responsible. But this is 0.02 of 1 percentage point of the federal budget. It's a fig leaf of responsibility, not a laurel.

"It's pretty simple," says Macquarie Bank's interest rates expert, Rory Robertson. "There are two main arms of policy - one is seeking to limit spending power in the economy." That's the Reserve Bank raising interest rates.

"At the same time, the other is topping up spending power in the economy." That's Howard and Rudd handing more cash around.

"The Reserve Bank looks at Canberra and sees neither side of politics is using fiscal policy to help reinforce the bank's tighter monetary policy, so it has to tighten further."

The ANZ Bank's chief economist, Saul Eslake, is frustrated at the leaders' deliberate blindness: "Kevin Rudd likes to quote me, but he won't take my advice. Peter Costello quotes the IMF in praise of him, but he won't take its advice."

And that advice is clear. Eslake: "Howard and Rudd both claim to be committed Christians, so they would have heard in Sunday school the original architect of counter-cyclical fiscal policy - it was Joseph, who urged Pharaoh to store grain from the seven fat years and set it aside for the seven lean years."
]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:30:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/272055 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/270873
+++++

More to running economy than going for growth
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/21/1192940902965.html

Ross Gittins
October 22, 2007

MONDAY COMMENT

SORRY, but I can't warm to the Liberals' Go For Growth as an inspirational, future-oriented election slogan. For one thing, it's too reminiscent of Paul Keating. For another, it's too close to the ideal of growth at any cost.

It's a slap in the face of those who believe our push for eternally higher living standards needs to be modified by acceptance of the imperative of minimising the damage economic activity does to the environment.

It's a strange slogan to be espoused by a Prime Minister newly converted to the cause of halting global warming - although the use of economic instruments such as tradable emission permits is intended, of course, to minimise the conflict between environmental protection and economic growth.

It's also a slap at those who believe that, in our pursuit of economic growth, we need to pay more attention to quality, not just quantity. That there's no point in becoming richer if you damage your relationships with family and friends in the process.

In short, Go For Growth has a terribly old-fashioned ring to it. As I say, it reminds me of Keating. That was his slogan during the boom of the late 1980s, though he added a characteristic twist, saying his policy was to "Go for growth - and hang on!"

Hang on turned out to be good advice because, before long, the economy roared off the speedway and landed us in "the recession we had to have". Deep recessions are indeed unavoidable if you're mad enough to believe in driving the economy as fast as possible at all times.

I remember it well because, at the time, I thought going for growth sounded a good idea. The subsequent recession taught me different - as has the record period of expansion we're still enjoying.

Since the running of the economy passed from the politicians to the central bankers, the underlying philosophy has shifted from Go For Growth to Slow But Steady Wins The Race.

When you think about it, the two slogans neatly encapsulate the rival mentalities of politicians and econocrats. The pollies always want to keep their foot on the floor and are reluctant to apply the brakes before it's absolutely necessary.

The inevitable consequence is what used to be called Stop/Go policies. It was the last gasp of misguided Keynesianism: in your impatience to get unemployment down you poured on the stimulus to get the economy out of recession and, while ever unemployment remained unacceptably high, you refused to contemplate any slowing.

Anyone who worried about what this process might be doing to inflation pressure was a stooge for the rich and powerful and didn't really care about the plight of the jobless.

It took macro-economists far too long to twig that the more you went at it like a bull at a gate, the sooner the engine would overheat and the sooner your sheer terror at the speed you were doing around corners would force you to jam on the brakes, leave the road and bring on the next recession.

Recessions were rarely more than seven years apart.

Eventually, however, the econocrats realised that if you cared about unemployment it was the recessions - not any less than flat-chat growth between them - that did the damage. That was when the former governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane, began repeating his mantra that the trick to getting unemployment down was to keep the recessions as far apart as possible.

And the way to achieve that was, paradoxically, to worry more about inflation. When macro management was handed over to the more patient, longer-sighted econocrats, they abandoned Go For Growth and substituted the goal of "sustainable" or "non-inflationary" growth.

To put it another way, they instigated a speed limit for growth, with the limit governed by the need to keep the inflation rate between 2 and 3 per cent on average over the cycle.

Aided by micro-economic reforms that have intensified the competitive pressure in markets and made the economy less inflation-prone, the inflation target has so far managed to stave off the next recession for a record interval of more than 16 years.

In that time the Reserve Bank has been through three protracted braking episodes, including the present incomplete episode. For much of that time progress in reducing unemployment was painfully slow, with surprisingly few full-time jobs being created.

From our present vantage point, however, with the official unemployment rate down to its lowest in 33 years (and broader measures of unemployment, which take account of underemployment and hidden unemployment, also at three-decade lows), it's clear that Slow But Steady does win the race.

Presumably, the point of the Go For Growth slogan is to remind people of the Government's (in truth, the Reserve Bank's) superior economic performance and put it in a forward-looking context.

Unfortunately, in John Howard's efforts to breathe life into that slogan in comments made to the Herald last week, he implied he imagined we lived in a world of perpetual spare capacity, had no idea of the existence of a non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment, and argued that micro reform had eliminated the business cycle.

He must have been let out without his economist minders.

Fortunately, we know that whoever wins the election, management of the macro economy will remain in the safe hands of the central bankers, who won't have a bar of the Go For Growth mentality.

Ross Gittins is the Herald's Economics Editor.

+++++

Come on Kevin (Rudd, the alternative prime minister) - let's not mirror the government's approach here! We want quality, not quantity! a low carbon, sustainable future means restructuring our economy and getting new priorities!

]]> Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:43:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/270873 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/270871
anyway, going to post some stuff now :)

hope you are all amazing.

]]> Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:43:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/270871 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/251079
"I would not talk about any use of force," Dr ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."

!!!!

the UN has a reputation for putting good people in this role. hello hans blix. hello the aussie guy whose name i cannot recall!

full article here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/elbaradei-warns-of-drift-into-iran-war/2007/09/18/1189881511694.html?sssdmh=dm16.279738

]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:04:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/251079 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/248185 Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:27:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/248185 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/248183
++++

Silversun Pickups Future Foe Scenarios Lyrics

The things we laid do not amount to much
made of abandoned wood loose stones and such

this revolution baby
proves who you work for lately

release the castaways who run amok
from self appointed winds which blow and such
when present tense gets strangled in the mire
made of our cozy decomposing wires

who do you work for baby
and does it work for you lately

but when the night is over and the walls start burning
when fire starts to matter and the clock is churning
cliches and other chatter keeps our minds from
learning

it's alright

the things we laid do not amount to much
made up of thought balloons and cotton swabs
when present tense gets strangled in the woes
made of our future foe scenarios

this revolution baby
proves who you work for lately
who do you work for baby
and does it work for you lately

but when the night is over and the walls keep linking
when fire starts to matter and the clock keeps sinking
cliches and other chatter keeps our minds from
thinking
our minds keep thinking

it's alright

that's when it turned on me
a motorcade of 'meant to be's’
parades of beauty queens
where soft entwines make kindling
these many detailed things
like broken nails and plastic rings
will win by keeping me
from speaking to my new darling
and there's no way to know
our future foe scenarios
that's when it turned on me
where bobby pins hold angel wings

it's alright ]]> Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:19:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/248183 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/248181 Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:14:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/248181 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/229421
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/school-gap-blamed-for-nations-stupidity/2007/07/09/1183833431879.html?sssdmh=dm16.268229

Anna Patty Education Editor
July 10, 2007

AUSTRALIA is on its way to becoming "the stupid country" through neglect of public education and a widening gap between its best- and worst-performing school students, an influential principal has warned.

Chris Bonnor, who until last year represented 466 principals as the head of the NSW Secondary Principals' Council, makes his argument in a book to be released later this month.

Mr Bonnor, principal of Asquith Boys and Davidson high schools through the 1990s and until 2005, was last year made a member of the Order of Australia for services to education.

His book, The Stupid Country: How Australia is Dismantling Public Education, co-written with the public school advocate Jane Caro, says populist education policies are diverting attention from government neglect of schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas.

Mr Bonnor says the Federal Government's focus on issues such as performance pay for teachers indirectly blames schools and teachers for problems in student performance.

Attacks on the curriculum have been ideologically driven and have shifted attention from the growing inequity in resources between high-fee private schools and low-fee independent and public schools.

Social inequity and class differences are becoming entrenched in the growing divide between private and public schools.

Rather than tackling educational problems linked to economic disadvantage, Bonnor and Caro say, the Government suggests there must be something wrong with schools, creating "an easy and populist agenda for politicians".

"What passes for educational policy degenerates into competing plans for more testing, accountability, standards and anything else that addresses community anxiety, real or otherwise.

"It all sits easily with calls for more police, longer jail terms … [and diverts attention from] problems that can't be boiled down into simple policies or blamed on teachers."

The Government and bureaucracy often point to "lighthouse schools that register substantial achievement against the odds, as some form of proof that the solution lies entirely within schools and that the broader context doesn't matter".

Australia's top students perform well compared with those from other developed countries, but the poorest students are behind their equivalents in similar countries.

Mr Bonnor said this gap was set to worsen because of the growing inequity between economically disadvantaged and well-resourced schools.

The Federal Government will increase its funding to private schools by 30 per cent over the next five years to $7.5 billion and by 10 per cent to $3.4 billion for public schools.

The Federal Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, said policies such as performance pay, greater principal autonomy and national consistency in curriculum were aimed at improving academic standards "so that students across the nation have access to a high-quality education from a high-quality teacher in a high-quality environment".
]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:29:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/229421 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/227277 http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=276968

Your say: PM links Iraq war to oil
Thursday Jul 5 09:20 AEST

The government has admitted the need to secure oil supplies is a factor in Australia's
continued military involvement in Iraq.

In a major speech outlining his government's foreign policy direction , Prime Minister
John Howard today said the Middle East was crucial to Australia's strategic and economic
future.

He said many strategic challenges including terrorism, demand for energy resources and
competition between rival powers converged in the Middle East.

"Our major ally and our most important economic partners have crucial interests
there," Mr Howard said.

"In these circumstances it is all the more critical that the coalition succeed in
establishing a stable democratic Iraq that is capable of defending itself against al Qaeda
and the internal enemies that wish to tear it apart."

Do you agree with the prime minister? Does securing the supply of oil and supporting the
"prestige" of the US and UK ? as Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said ? justify
the decision to keep Australian troops in Iraq?


I posted my comment but it hasn't appeared yet.



]]> Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:33:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/227277 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/221929
first up, see all of the articles on the sydney morning herald website. an array of opinions.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/im-seizing-control-says-pm/2007/06/21/1182019286734.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/editorial/policy-revolution-in-black-and-white/2007/06/21/1182019276182.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-guts-to-confront-a-brutal-truth/2007/06/21/1182019279684.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/leaders-lament-its-a-kneejerk-step-back/2007/06/21/1182019286797.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/customary-law-brushed-aside-in-howards-rushed-attack/2007/06/21/1182019286800.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/get-the-police-in-and-the-booze-out/2007/06/22/1182019318609.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howards-got-it-wrong/2007/06/22/1182019326040.html

wow.

and a very telling article The Australian of all places!!!!

Nothing less than a new social order

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21947695-601,00.html

Nicolas Rothwell, June 22, 2007

[The Australian] WITH rapier speed and devastating force, the federal Government seized control yesterday of the Aboriginal heart of Australia, sweeping away a generation's worth of political assumptions and imposing a completely new pattern of surveillance and control over the remote
indigenous communities of the centre and the north.

Let there be no mistake: yesterday's declaration of a national emergency by John Howard ranks with the referendum of 1967, or the passage of land rights in the Northern Territory, as a turning point in Australian history: in what direction remains to be seen.

The political opportunity pounced on by the Prime Minister and his driven Indigenous Affairs Minister, Mal Brough, was the slightest of targets: a report on child sexual abuse commissioned by the Northern Territory Government a year ago in a bid to defuse a media controversy.

But the context comes from the intense struggle over Aboriginal policy that has raged for the past seven years, ever since Cape York leader Noel Pearson set out his argument that indigenous rights must be balanced by responsibilities, and that passive welfare rots and destroys communities.

This battle of ideas has now taken a decisive turn: the Prime Minister has acted unilaterally in the one place he can: the Territory, where federal law prevails. It is no coincidence that Pearson has just handed to the federal Government a blueprint for social reform in his Cape York area that sketches out the justifications for several of the restrictions Canberra now seeks to impose more widely in the remote north.

In sweeping measures, so astonishing to political veterans that their scope and feasibility was still being weighed up last night, Canberra tore up the long-established political compact in remote Australia: the unspoken deal whereby indigenous communities have broad freedom, a tithe of welfare, and substandard social services, almost imposed by their sheer remoteness from mainstream society.

Now, in the wake of Howard's highly charged announcement of a "national emergency", all is changed. The last vestiges of the rhetoric of self-determination have been tossed away.

Child sexual abuse is the pretext for wide action. The aim is to establish normal, well-educated, well-governed communities in the bush - to end the second-tier status of the Aboriginal world and its strangeness and psychic distance from modern Australia.

Draconian alcohol restrictions come in - very much on the Pearson model, which views alcoholic drinking not as a right but an addiction. Additional policing comes in, and all children younger than 16 will receive health checks to identify medical problems and guard against the possibility of abuse. These are intrusive, and even shocking, proposals justified only by the degree of moral outrage felt in the community in the wake of the Territory report.

The "emergency response" aims at nothing less than establishing a new social order in the bush. This is human engineering on the grand scale. Violence against women and children and non-attendance of children at local schools will now, or so the plan goes, come to an end.

Permits were required, until now, to get into most large communities in the Northern Territory: that requirement will be removed. Welfare payments to Aboriginal people were unconditional: now they will be cut back for long-term recipients in larger communities, and will be made conditional on
families sending their children to school.

Abuse is symptomatic. It stems in part from licence; from deep-set, population-wide depression; and from the sense of drift and chaos evident in much of Aboriginal remote Australia.

In keeping with Brough's military instincts, the package has a strong kinship with discipline and martial law, and is best understood as a drastic curtailment of Aboriginal freedom of action, the better to improve the chances of social survival.

This "law and order" package will be directly run: there will be government manager tsars in larger communities; there will be work-for-the-dole clean-ups and repairs, and the whole sweep of the federal Government's long-frustrated housing reform, rental and tenancy proposals will come into
force. Townships will be leased for five years, and become a federal responsibility.

Perhaps most telling of all will be the effect on the alcohol-plagued town camps in Alice Springs, long a personal priority for Brough. They were leaseholds won after hard political struggle, but now many of them are set to be resumed, on the grounds that the landholders have breached their lease
conditions.

The "emergency" package is the most concerted assault by Canberra on the troublesome Labour Northern Territory Government yet. It is an assault with constitutional implications, that strips away de facto control of half the Territory's land mass, and spells the effective end of its immediate hopes
for statehood.

More than this, it drives a stake through the Territory's (even Australia's) dream of creating a harmonious multiracial society based on two empowered communal groups.

A new world now dawns in the remote centre and north: some 110 Aboriginal communities will be changed utterly. This will cost resources, resolve and personnel.

It is election time, and the degree to which the federal Labour Party buys this package will be critical. But there is another important aspect to these reforms. Once imposed, they will take a lot of undoing - and the clear intent is that they will have rapid impact on behaviour, on well-being and educational standards.

In the Territory's Aboriginal world, most leaders were keeping silent last night, and absorbing the impact of this earthquake.

But in Darwin, the parliament, with its six proud indigenous members, was sitting when news of the Prime Minister's plan came through. The mood was sombre, as the extent of the reform proposals became plain. Everyone knew that a familiar world, and its established assumptions, had just been put to the sword.


from one of the Sydney Morning Herald articles was this quote - which drives at the racial heart of the package of 'reforms':

"And will alcohol be pulled off the shelves of Woolworths in Alice Springs? Will they close the bars in Tennant Creek? Where are the cops who are going to police this?" She also asked why mining companies had not been targeted, with last week's abuse report having included evidence that Aboriginal girls were being prostituted to mine workers. "Why is he not asking for an accounting by mining companies working on Aboriginal land for the behaviours of their men?"


here is a statement from ANTAR on this issue:

Dear Cameron,

I am writing to let you know ANTaR's response to the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday, regarding the child abuse crisis in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities: these measures are Draconian and will only add to the suffering of children.

ANTaR believes the Prime Minister was right to describe the widespread abuse of Aboriginal children as a national emergency but wrong in the way his government is seeking to overcome it.

Particularly horrifying is the plan to introduce compulsory health checks for all Aboriginal children to examine for signs of abuse – regardless of whether this is suspected.

Little children are sacred. Compulsory and potentially invasive checks of this kind will add to their trauma.

There is no other group in society that would be subject to these kinds of measures. Can you imagine what would happen if the Government ordered compulsory health checks for Anglo, Chinese, Jewish or Muslim children? There'd be an uproar. Yet the Prime Minister thinks it is appropriate to enforce this on Aboriginal children.

Efforts to stamp out child abuse should target the perpetrators rather than demonise whole communities.

The Government response also seemed to ignore the findings of the 'Little Children are Sacred' report that non-Aboriginal men were also responsible for the abuse of Aboriginal children.

We should tackle the extent of pornography and there may even be a case for banning it, but if this is going to happen it should occur across the board – in mining camps and lounge rooms as well
as Aboriginal communities.

While stopping alcohol abuse is essential to overcoming child abuse, prohibition would be unlikely to achieve this. Prohibition hasn't worked anywhere else in the world. Why does the Prime Minister think it will work in the Northern Territory?

There is no doubting the sincerity and commitment of the Prime Minister and Minister Brough in relation to ending child abuse, but their misguided approach would be unlikely to achieve it. The
heavy handed control of Aboriginal people helped create the problems of child abuse and violence. More of the same is not going to solve them.

ANTaR has worked extensively to support Aboriginal people who are overcoming violence and child abuse. In 2006 we organized a forum in Parliament House, Canberra bringing Aboriginal leaders who have successfully tackled abuse and violence together with politicians and public servants to discuss strategies to overcome these problems.

ANTaR is currently campaigning to urge the NSW Government to properly fund its response to the abuse of Aboriginal children in that state. Our 'Success Stories in Indigenous Health' booklet (http://www.antar.org.au/success) released this week also profiles a number of successful programs that are tackling child abuse and its effects.

Please write an email or send an urgent fax to the Prime Minister and Minister Brough expressing your distress:

Prime Minister John Howard
Fax: (02) 6273 4100
Email form: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm

Mal Brough, Minister for Indigenous Affairs
Fax: (02) 6273 4122
Email form: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=2K6

Thanks again for your support.

Regards,

Gary Highland
National Director
Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR)
Phone: 02 9555 6138
Mobile: 0418 476 940
Email: gary@antar.org.au
Website: http://www.antar.org.au


finally, here is a bit of a rant from me:

quote from an article on smh

"Some may suspect Mr Howard has made his announcement with one eye on the election. Is this a second Murray-Darling takeover - a grand gesture in a good cause, but announced with little detail or consultation, intended to impress onlookers as much as to come to grips with the problem? We believe not. There is, as Mr Pearson has observed, little for politicians to gain in tackling Aboriginal affairs seriously. With some proviso, there is no doubt the program is worth trying, if only because most other things have failed. There is no doubt about the good intentions of Mr Howard and his Government. But good intentions, as Aboriginal Australians know better than most, provide a smooth, fast surface on the road to hell."

interesting.

it's a complicated situation. very. and it's not abstract. people's lives have been and are being destroyed.

i think most of us on this circulation see this as a massive system failure and that almost all of the current 'cures' are addressing symptoms rather than causes.

having said that, personally i dont' think anyone has a good answer. something needs to be done. i appreciated mochelle's outlining of possible action scenarios. i couldn't think of anything further.

what strikes me with this issue, and possible solutions, is that neither left or right has much utility here, not in the short term, and that traditional and current approaches are seemingly failing.

i put this situation in the same 'basket' as palestine and now iraq. there are so many competing idealogies, factors, issues, etc. that blame and ideology almost have no relevance - only practical solutions.

me? i'm out of my depth with this. i'm reading all i can. i'm horrified by what has been happening, is happening now, and accept that my 'progressive' stance on aboriginal issues likely hasn't helped anyone in the indigenous communities one iota. i am equally uncomfortable with the approach of the Howard gov't announced overnight, while agreeing with the intent, i.e. stabilise, stop the worst, provide a platform for a new future.

it is also so worrying that it is happening so close to the election, for all the election games that will be played. so much will be lost and screwed up as a result.

cameron
]]> Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:35:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/221929 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/220575
'greed is good' is the mantra ...

Greed no longer so good on Wall Street
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/greed-no-longer-so-good/2007/06/19/1182019079427.html
June 19, 2007 - 12:05PM

Wall Street's push for record profits is ruining careers, tearing apart families and keeping drug dealers busy, mental health experts say.

While record bonuses make some Wall Street bankers feel invincible, others become emotional wrecks from pressure to perform and some hit rock bottom, experts say.

Harris Stratyner, a psychologist at Caron's New York Recovery Centre, says some executives he treats are dabbling in cocaine, opiate-based drugs, Ecstasy and marijuana, as well as abusing alcohol.

"It's like they're chasing a dream. Even when they make tremendous profits, they're still worried," he says.

Alden Cass, a clinical psychologist who counsels Wall Streeters with drug addictions, says drug abuse and high anxiety are undercurrents to the current boom.

"When things are really good, they feel invulnerable," Cass says. "That can lead to adultery, substance abuse, problems with the law."

When it comes to profits, things are really good.

Six of the largest US investment banks - Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase Co, Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns - combined for $US17.6 billion ($21 billion) in first-quarter profit this year.

That's after shelling out $US28.8 billion ($34.2 billion) for pay and benefits, financial statements show.

Those profit and pay figures are more than double those seen in the first quarter of 2000, the last days before the dot-com bubble burst. New York's comptroller estimates Wall Street's 2006 bonuses will generate $US1.6 billion ($1.9 billion) in state tax revenue.

"To my knowledge, we have not seen an uptick in drug use," Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Jean Marie McFadden said.

The other five firms declined comment or did not return telephone calls.

But Cass says opiate abuse among his clients is rising and they openly talk about being hooked on prescription drugs like OxyContin, known as hillbilly heroin.

"That's what has changed from previous booms on Wall Street," he says.

Cass and Stratyner say their clients sometimes conceal their habits by taking prescription drugs they get for back surgery or sports-related injuries. The internet has also expanded the black market for drugs.

Wall Street professionals in their 20s use Ritalin and Adderall, prescription drugs used to treat attention-deficit disorder and hyperactivity, to enhance their performance as they grind out 100-hour weeks, Cass says.

Big bonuses and the need to blow off steam have helped invigorate demand for cocaine in Manhattan, according to two junior bankers who did not want to be named.

Juan Rodriguez, convicted of selling drugs to investment bankers and other professionals, said his clients never complained about the price of cocaine, even as it escalated.

"My customers were all business individuals," Rodriguez said, citing Morgan Stanley bankers as among his clients.

Morgan Stanley said the company has a strong policy against substance abuse and uses random drug testing.

One hiring manager at a major New York bank said new staff must take a urine test, which is typical for the industry. But he said new hires can choose when to schedule the test during a 45-day period before their start date.

"Our drug test is not so much a test of whether you actually take drugs as it is an intelligence test to see if you can figure out how long it takes to get traces of the drug out of your system," said the manager, who asked not to be named.

The hiring manager said his employer also had a policy of random drug tests for employees but that in several years he had never encountered anyone subjected to such a test.

Drugs are not the only reason for executive meltdowns.

Overwhelming pressure and anxiety to meet profit goals undid star trader David Becker as he rose the Citigroup ladder.

Nine months after becoming global commodities chief, Becker found himself on the fast track to prison. The largest US bank discovered in 2004 that Becker and others conspired to overstate profits by $US20 million.

Becker, 41, pleaded guilty and is serving a 15-month sentence in federal prison. He declined to comment.

Before he committed his crime, he sought psychiatric help to deal with the pressure of balancing family and career, court papers show.

A metaphor for his life was a painting he owned depicting a man being pulled by all four limbs, Becker's psychiatrist, Dr Barbara Deutsch, wrote to the judge in the case.

"He felt enormous pressure to make the group's budget at all costs," Deutsch wrote. "He felt identified with this tortured man."

Reuters
]]> Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:21:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/220575 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/219827
rasselchisango@iypf.org

I am certainly excited once again to be in touch with all of you amazing YPs from across the globe, both IYPF members and non-members. Here's hoping that I find you equally excited about our upcoming International Young Professionals Summit 2008 (IYPS 2008) in Manchester, England from the 19th to the 23rd of August 2008.As part of our commitment to making this Summit a holistic, responsive and comprehensive Young Professionals oriented Summit we are glad to offer you this opportunity to meaningfully contribute to the whole Programme Planning process.

Accordingly, please be advised that this Consultative Program Planning Process is guided by our vision and mission as IYPF (www.iypf.org) and follows on from our two previous far reaching Summits held in 2001 and 2004 where the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were a key theme (see www.iyps.org/iyps08/past_events.htm).

This consultative process also aims at ensuring that YPs attending IYPS 2008 get the greatest possible benefit from its the various sessions. Therefore your focused participation and contributions are invaluable. Our programme will have delegate registration and Summit Introduction on the 19th, the 20th-22nd as full discussion and workshop days, and an optional on the ground field trip on the 23rd.

We will therefore have 3 days to discuss the following proposed themes, which yet again are MDGs-centric, and how IYPF can support its members and other young professionals in helping to achieve them:
· Governance, economy and education under MDGs 1 2
· Women and gender equality under MDG 3
· Healthcare and HIV / AIDS under MDGs 4,5 6
· Water, energy, sustainable consumption and infrastructure under MDG 7

Emphasis will also be made throughout the summit to ensure that we use IYPF as a platform to achieve the MDGs that entails promoting a global partnership for development.

Over and above that we will certainly have as part of our final programme such items as the Global Change Fiesta, an equivalent to "Bush Yoga", Coaching sessions, skills workshops and a Field trip. As has already been expressed, we look forward to your passionate focused contribution as we strive to set up a really difference making final YPs oriented IYPS 2008 Program that we will all enjoy!

For more details on IYPS2008 please visit www.iyps.org.
]]> Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:11:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/219827 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/205917
see the transcript below.

if you go to the URL, the video is up too, but not sure for how long.

cameron

+++++


Economists push for free trade to tackle poverty
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200705/s1925163.htm

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 16/05/2007

Reporter: Neal Woolrich

Since the expansion of fair trade products for more socially conscious shoppers, economists are arguing free trade is a better way to alleviate poverty.

Transcript
ALI MOORE: Fair trade is a consumer movement that's been steadily gathering pace in recent years. It aims to boost living standards for Third World farmers by providing decent wages and conditions. But fair trade has come under fire, with some economists arguing that free trade is a better way to alleviate poverty. Neal Woolrich reports.

NEAL WOOLRICH: In specialty supermarkets here and abroad, a quiet consumer revolution is taking place. Socially conscious shoppers are making the switch to fair trade products, which aim to give third world workers a better deal.

PIERCE CODY, MACRO WHOLEFOODS: It's basically paying the people who pick the coffee a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. There's no child labour, there's no slave labour, to put it brutally. There's good working amenity conditions. It's basically looking after - ensuring the workers are looked after properly as we would expect to here in a developed nation such as Australia.

NEAL WOOLRICH: Pierce Cody says the concept is a hit with consumers across a wide range of income brackets and especially younger shoppers.

PIERCE CODY: We'd have three times more product in here than we did a year ago, 18 months ago, that's fair trade. So obviously if we're stocking it, we're only stocking it because people are buying it. So it is increasing.

NEAL WOOLRICH: But the concept has its critics, with some economists arguing that free trade would provide a better outcome for poor farmers.

PROF. SINCLAIR DAVIDSON, RMIT UNIVERSITY: Free trade creates a system where hard work is rewarded. The fair trade system creates a situation where those farmers who are able to access the label are rewarded. It creates a system of winners and losers, whereas in a free market where people are voluntary training, everybody is a winner.

NEAL WOOLRICH: Professor Sinclair Davidson has also taken a specific complaint to the ACCC. He argues that some fair trade farmers have been paying much less than the minimum wage in Peru, in clear breach of the fair trade labelling standard.

PROF. SINCLAIR DAVIDSON: We would hope that the fair trade coffee brand would have to give a fair and accurate reflection of what it is that they're actually doing. They claim to be monitoring the coffee process from beginning to end, but in fact it's quite clear that they're not doing that and we think that they should become clean of consumers and admit that they are not monitoring as well as they claim to be.

NEAL WOOLRICH: But Cameron Neil says the complaint is based on a flawed report by the UK's Financial Times, and the fair trade coffee workers are paid above the minimum wage.

CAMERON NEIL, FAIR TRADE LABELLING: This despite only being able to sell 10 to 15 per cent of their overall crop as fair trade. What fair trade requires is that the cooperatives use the benefits of fair trade to benefit those workers. And clearly if you're being paid 25 per cent more than the average, those benefits are beginning to be shared.

NEAL WOOLRICH: Local advocates argue that free trade on its own won't deliver improved conditions for poor farmers.

CAMERON NEIL: We also need to ensure that those people that have traditionally been disadvantaged can actually benefit from trade as well. And that's where fair trade comes in, in terms of development, in terms of assisting the capacity building of those organisations and those producers to compete in international trade markets.

NEAL WOOLRICH: And whatever the outcome of the ACCC case, it looks like arguments on the merits of fair trade are set to be played out in the market place for ideas for some time to come.]]> Thu, 17 May 2007 02:55:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/205917 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/190809
ESCAPING THE MATRIX

By Tim Montague

In the movie, The Matrix, a computer hacker named Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) is living an ordinary life in what he thinks is 1999. However, when he is contacted by the enigmatic character, Morpheus, Neo learns that he is actually living in the year 2199 where some malevolent computers have created a realistic but totally false version of 20th-century life ("the matrix") to keep Neo and the rest of the population happily enslaved. It turns out the computers are "farming" the population to fuel a campaign of total domination being carried out in the real world of 2199. To gain freedom and justice, Neo must first make a decision to confront the awful truth, then join forces with Morpheus and others to figure out how to escape from the matrix.

Like Neo, we have a choice -- to go on pretending that everything is as it appears, or to search for a deeper truth about the nature of our reality. In our matrix, we live in a democracy where everyone is created equal, with liberty and justice for all. Our school books, television shows and politicians assure us that if we work hard and play by the rules we can all get ahead and have "the good life." In reality we live in an economy that is wrecking the planet and destroying the future for our children, increasingly benefiting only a handfull of elites.

see the rest here:
http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_the_matrix.070208.htm


]]> Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:36:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/190809 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/188297
gun advocates on the offensive to say the virginia tech massacre was BECAUSE EVERYONE DIDN'T HAVE A GUN rather than lax gun control.

my lord.

this just made me laugh far too much.

+++++

More guns could have prevented US uni massacre: advocates
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1904169.htm


Gun advocates in the United States say last week's massacre at Virginia Tech university may not have happened if students were allowed to carry concealed guns on campus.

"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defence League.

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he told AFP.

"You want people to be able to defend themselves - always," he said.

Thirty-two people were killed when student Cho Seung-Hui went on the rampage in the worst campus massacre in US history.

Mr Van Cleave said the tragedy could give a boost to a years-long effort in Virginia to pass legislation allowing students to carry weapons on campus - especially since existing laws failed to prevent Cho's murderous rampage.

"Gun control failed. That student under university rules was not to have a gun," Van Cleave said.

"Come legislative season, which is in January, we're going to be fighting to get a bill put in again - the third year in a row now and hopefully this time it will pass - that would let students that are over 21 with a permit ... carry concealed self-defence," he said.

The bill, which would also allow any faculty member possessing a concealed carry permit to carry a concealed weapon, has a "greatly enhanced" chance of passage following the Virginia Tech shooting, Mr Van Cleave said.

The south-eastern state where the shootings took place allows anyone 21 years of age or older and holding a concealed handgun permit to carry a weapon.

That is not true, however, of college campuses, where most universities have a strict prohibition against carrying guns.

Other gun rights advocates echo Mr Van Cleave's view that had even one Virginia Tech student or faculty member been armed, last week's carnage might have been prevented.

"The only person who is responsible to defend you is you - the police are incapable of defending each and every one of us all the time," said Mike Stollenwerk, 44, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, a Virginia-based gun-rights networking group.

"Citizens have an inherent right to be able to defend themselves," he told the Washington Times newspaper.

"You can't always have a policeman on every street corner to take care of you. Whenever you have a bunch of gun-control laws that prohibit people from carrying, the ones with the guns are the criminals."

-AFP
]]> Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:25:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/188297 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/179829
both energy and water use are down from previous quarters - which is good - but perhaps a spike is expected for winter with heating devices being used.

WATER

at the moment, water use for our household - which is typically two people - is 133kL (133 000 litres) per year. the average for an ACT household (2.6 people) is 280 000 litres. so pretty good!

this breaks down to:

AVERAGE

280 000 litres per year for 2.6 people = 767 litres per day, which is 295 litres per person per day

US

133 000 litres per year for 2 people = 364 litres per day, which is 182 litres per person per day.

in the last quater (january to march), our usage was down to 127.5 litres per person per day.

we did spike up in the sept to dec qtr - maybe due to house guests in the last few weeks? not sure.


ELECTRICITY

i couldn't find comparison figures for the ACT on electricity, but our use has come down to 13kw hours / day for the house, which is 6.5 kw hours / person / day.

the july to october quarter last year was our biggest - probably reflecting heating!

our biggest use seems to be the hot water system - we could save a lot by replacing it with solar or gas i'm sure. and we want to do that when we re do our bathroom.

on the plus side, we are signed up to Greenchoice 15 in the ACT which sources 15kw hours per day 'new' renewables (built since 1997) - http://www.actewagl.com.au/greenchoice/

this adds $0.75 per day to our bill. according to the website, this saves 5.8 tonnes or greenhouse per year. given our use in the last quarter was only 13kw hrs / day, and we bought 15 kw hrs / day in renewables, we are doing pretty well.

]]> Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:29:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/179829 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/175163
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/poor-left-in-lurch-if-world-overheats/2007/04/01/1175366080776.html?sssdmh=dm16.253533

Andrew Revkin in New York
April 2, 2007

THE world's richest countries, which have contributed by far the most to the atmospheric changes linked to global warming, are spending billions of dollars to limit their own risks from its worst consequences, such as drought and rising seas.

But despite long-standing treaty commitments to help poor countries deal with warming, these industrial powers are spending just tens of millions of dollars to limit climate and coastal hazards in the world's most vulnerable regions - most of them overwhelmingly poor.

On Friday, a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that has been assessing global warming since 1990, will underline this growing divide, say scientists involved in writing the report. Wealthy nations far from the equator will not only experience fewer effects, but will withstand them better, they say.

Climate change will inflict steadily rising costs that could become astronomical if greenhouse gas emissions rise unabated and countries delay preparations for the likely impacts, the report will say.

Two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions come in nearly equal proportions from the US and Western European countries. These and other wealthy nations are investing in windmill-powered desalination plants, in flood barriers and floatable homes, and in grains and soybeans genetically altered to flourish even in a drought.

By contrast, Africa accounts for less than 3 per cent of the global emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel burning since 1900, yet its 840 million people face some of the biggest risks from drought and disrupted water supplies, according to the latest scientific assessments. As the oceans swell with water from melting ice sheets, it is the crowded deltas in southern Asia and Egypt, along with small island states, that are most at risk.

"Like the sinking of the Titanic, catastrophes are not democratic," said Henry Miller, a fellow with the Hoover Institution. "A much higher fraction of passengers from the cheaper decks were lost. We'll see the same phenomenon with global warming."

Although rich countries are hardly immune from drought and flooding, their wealth will largely insulate them from harm, at least for the next generation or two, many experts say. Cities in Australia, Texas and California, for example, are already building or planning desalination plants.

"The inequity of this whole situation is really enormous if you look at who's responsible and who's suffering as a result," said Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN climate panel.

Dr Miller said the world should focus less on trying to cut greenhouse gases rapidly and more on helping regions at risk become more resilient.

Relief organisations, including Oxfam and the International Red Cross, foreseeing a world of worsening climate-driven disasters, are turning their attention towards projects such as expanding mangrove forests as a buffer against storm surges, planting trees on slopes to prevent landslides and building shelters on high ground.

Industrialised countries bound by the Kyoto Protocol, the climate pact rejected by the US and Australian governments, project that hundreds of millions of dollars will soon flow via that treaty into a climate adaptation fund.

But for now, the actual spending in adaptation projects in the world's most vulnerable spots, totalling about $US40 million ($50 million) a year, "borders on the derisory", said Kevin Watkins, the director of the UN Human Development Report Office, which tracks factors affecting the quality of life around the world.

The New York Times, Agence France-Presse]]> Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:11:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/175163 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/171325
Please feel free to steal ideas and concepts to write your own letter to your MP.

Cameron

++++

Dear Annette Ellis,

I am sure I will not be the only one writing to you to express their views on what we - and possibly you in a future Labor government - can and should be doing to tackle the challenge of global warming ahead of Mr Rudd's National Climate Change Summit next Saturday in Canberra.

As someone who works every day on issues of sustainability, social justice, fair trade, creating sustainable communities, empowering young people to take action on climate change - the opportunity of the National Summit excites me.

Recently we have seen a paradigm shift on these issues and they are rapidly becoming mainstream. Government's around the world are coming to grips with the catastrophe that awaits them if we fail to do nothing. Everywhere you look, there are features, columns, articles, TV shows on how to save the planet in one way or other.

This zeitgeist and polling clearly shows Australian - like so many others in the world - are willing to make changes in their own lives, are even willing to make sacrifices, and want (perhaps even demand) clear commitments and actions from Government.

The Coalition has let Australia down by playing games with its big brother, the Bush Administration, and avoiding - even denying the issues - and we are now in a dire situation. Like so many other Australians, I am looking to Labor to come forward with bold, visionary, and nation-building policies and commitments to action and real change that will transform our communities and our country - while also playing a lead role in the international community. We have high hopes for what a Labor government might achieve working with business and community groups who have been moving on these issues for a decade or more. We stand ready to support you at the polls and in the field to make these things happen.

If you are not yet aware, GetUp (though which we are organising on this issue) has set out the following Five Point Action Agenda calls on the next Federal Parliament of Australia to:

1) Ratify Kyoto and commit to 30 % reduction of greenhouse gases emissions by 2020

2) Introduce an emissions trading scheme with significant caps on carbon emissions

3) Lead a green energy revolution to slash our vast amounts of energy waste

4) Make renewable energy law, with a 12% legislated electricity target from renewable energy by 2012

5) Invest in a public transport system fit for the 21st century

I would add to this some ideas / thoughts of my own.

* As Mr Rudd and other Labor politicians have pointed out, we must tackle the climate change issue while also tackling our water problems. Reducing water use and waste, along with energy use and carbon emissions, should be pursued hand in hand.

Mandatory grey water systems for all households before they can be sold within 5 years, waterless and low water use public infrastructure in all capital cities, incentives for industry to utilise the same technologies - these should all be part of the mix. Such initiatives will drive innovation, create businesses and industry contributing to a common good, bring prices down for such technologies, and enable us to save massive amounts of water - and avoid the need to spend billions on dams, salination plants, etc. Grey water use on a mass scale is probably also part of the policy mix.

* Review the UK Sustainable Consumption Roundtable report and its recommendations, including microwind for power on schools, carbon taxes on flights, transport solutions, etc. However, perhaps most useful, is to understand the implementation frameworks in terms of changing WITH the electorate, ensuring people can't rort the system, and that it doesn't disadvantage the poor and marginalised. You can find the report here: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=367

* I also strongly urge Labor to look at the recommendations it made as part of the Senate inquiry on corporate responsibility. Such strategic changes to business and government department behaviour and reporting will send the right messages to capital and investment markets and provide more financial resources for 'goods' over 'bads.

* I encourage the Australian government to introduce a market-driven national carbon trading scheme for both industry and individuals that operates within a national 'carbon rationing system'. Such a scheme will create a market incentive to reduce emissions and invest in new processes to meet their targets. It is essential that no group is permitted concessions from the scheme but rather given the opportunity to buy-in as they see best.

The general idea - and for more info you can look at the proposals by the UK Environment Minister - is for the government to establish a national carbon regulation body that sets annual carbon emissions caps. It allocates the relevant percentage of current carbon creation to individuals and households for free, and makes the rest available to business on auction. Money raised by the government through this auction is used to invest in public infrastructure and technology development programs that will assist with reaching the target amount. Then within the allotted national carbon emissions cap, invididuals and businesses can trade carbon, sell it back to the regulator, etc.

The total carbon allowable is brought down each year until a 'sustainable' target is reached. Further, participation will create an environment where responsibiltiy for emissions is accepted and the 'embedded' carbon in goods and services better understood. The personal financial rewards for investing in a carbon saving and trading will further accelerate the opportunites for change in the workplace. As new products and systems are created they can be exported, further stimulating the Austrlian carbon economy.

Annette, I am sure you appreciate the import of the position we find ourselves in at this juncture of history. This is not just about an election win, or the current generation of Australians - its about the futures of all Australians and everyone around the world. Climate is something that effects the planet - and many of our brothers and sisters in more vulnerable environments and circumstances are already suffering the negative impacts of global warming. This is not something we can afford to dither about. We need swift, decisive action - albeit evidence based - at government level that sends the right message to the community and business.

I urge you to pursue, with your colleagues and in partnership with community and business leaders, an informed, bold and visionary agenda on the global warming issue and the future of Australia and the world.

Cameron]]> Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:42:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/171325 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667 http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/167501
as part of the speech, he attacked the labor party opposition, and its leader kevin rudd, over their inconsistent approach that differentiates iraq and afghanistan - with the policy of a staged withdrawal from iraq while supporting further troop mobilisation in afghanistan.

howard's speech probably finds a lot of ears out there that like what he says and agrees that it seems inconsistent to support troop deployments in afghanistan while pushing for troop withdrawals in iraq. to some, i'm sure, the views expressed by labor smack of political expediency, i.e. iraq is unpopular, so lets go with that. howard is presenting his 'staying the course' to demonstrate his political acumen and his willingness to make tough decisions.

i have always thought of iraq and afghanistan as very different war zones. while iraq has always seemed to me to be an illegal conflict and driven by oil and such, afghanistan seemed to have more legitimacy and support (though getting the energy from the central russian states to the coast seems to have certainly played a role as well).

this article - below - by william maley highlights the differences between iraq and afghanistan and in some ways makes sense of the labor / rudd position on the conflicts. (it just so happens that mr maley is in an office downstairs from me - i work in a cool place).

what do you think?

cameron

+++++

http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/results.chtml?filename_num=139779

WARS - Two different places

Posted: 02-03-2007

Despite what the defence minister says, the most striking thing about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan is how different they are, writes William Maley

BRENDAN NELSON has been having a rather rough time as Defence Minister. His is genuinely a portfolio in which loose lips sink ships, at least metaphorically. Last Thursday was quite a day for him. Not only did he create headlines with the statement that “there is no such thing as victory in Iraq,” he also attracted the ire of some veterans of the World War II campaign on the Kokoda Track with the assertion that “today we face something which is no less a risk to our culture, our values, our freedoms and way of life than was presented to us in 1942.”

This was, to put it mildly, a startling claim, not only because it reflected a profound misunderstanding of the existential threats Australia faced in 1942, but also because the Iraq conflict is a war of America’s and Australia’s choice in a way the Pacific war in 1942 certainly was not.

Partially buried by these dramatic utterances was another statement from Nelson on 22 February, this time in a doorstop interview, which attracted less attention but in a way deserved more. “The most important thing we’ve got to understand,” he claimed, “is that the same people that are causing all of the problems in Afghanistan are the same people that are causing problems in Iraq. We’re fighting the same people in two different places.”

Does Nelson truly believe this?

The most striking features of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are not their points of similarity, but their differences. A government that is blind to these differences risks badly botching its response to each country’s genuine but distinctive problems.

In both countries, the “enemy” forces defy simple description. Iraq is now enmeshed in a nasty civil war, a label that even the neo-conservative former US diplomat John Bolton is now prepared to use. However, its roots lie in a logic which should surprise no informed analyst.

Saddam Hussein’s regime saw a Sunni Muslim elite in a position of domination over a population which is about 60 per cent Shi’ite Muslims. The overthrow of Saddam held the promise of a permanent minority status for the Sunnis as a whole, and retribution against those Sunnis who had been Ba’ath Party members. The ill-considered de-Ba’athification decrees of the US-run Provisional Authority simply confirmed the fears of militant Sunnis, and drove them into classic patterns of “spoiler” behaviour. This was predictable.

It is cheaper and easier to be a wrecker than a builder, and the obvious targets for Sunni wreckers were members of the Shi’ite community. Leaders of the Shia of Iraq knowing that their numerical weight positioned them to benefit from electoral processes showed great patience in the face of both the Sunni spoiler tactics, and the inability of the coalition forces or the Iraqi Government to offer them protection. But eventually, their patience ran out, and Shi’ite militias lifted their own levels of activity, with some support from circles in the Shi’ite state of Iran. However, the impact of Iran’s support should not be exaggerated. A US National Intelligence Estimate in January 2007 concluded that “Iraq’s neighbours influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics.”

The confluence of the Sunnis’ spoiler behaviour, and the disgust of Shi’ites at the failure of the US and its local allies to protect Shi’ite interests, has produced a very complex nationalist underpinning for political violence: large numbers of both Sunnis and Shi’ites would like to see the Coalition leave. In a survey conducted last September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, 71 per cent of respondents stated that they would like the Iraqi Government to ask the US-led forces to withdraw within a year. Some 78 per cent believed that the US military in Iraq was provoking more conflict than it was preventing, and 61 per cent approved of attacks on US-led forces. It is this reality the loss of confidence on the part of a large slice of the Iraqi population that makes the Coalition’s position so dire, much more than any threat from “terrorism.” Some Sunni terrorists with attachments to al-Qaeda have indeed found their way to Iraq, and engaged in spectacular acts of barbarity, but to treat Iraq as the “front line” in a “war on terror” is to misread Iraq’s complexities very badly.

It is rather Afghanistan that faces the main threat from globalised terrorism, and it is there that resources should be concentrated to halt al-Qaeda’s recrudescence. It is simply mind-boggling that the US blundered off into Iraq before ensuring that al-Qaeda had been substantially obliterated in its hideouts on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Yet in contrast to what one finds in Iraq, the bulk of the Afghan population remains notably supportive of an international presence, and civil war has been avoided even though the population is also segmented on complex lines. The enemy here, while some use the expression “neo-Taliban,” is better seen as al-Qaeda in alliance with the old Taliban leadership, aided by a number of paid helpers doing its work in Afghanistan’s southern provinces, and by networks of supporters in Pakistan. Its core leaders sit nearby in Pakistan, and Pakistan provides a safe haven for its operations. Here is perhaps the key distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq conflict is largely generated by an internal dynamic. Afghanistan’s troubles are largely driven by an external terrorist force and by the foreign state from whose territory it is able to operate.

There is a role for Australia to play in Afghanistan, and an enhancement of Australia’s contribution there will enjoy bipartisan support. It is also time to put pressure on Pakistan, which is acting far more destructively in Afghanistan than Iran is in Iraq. But building wider support for a good cause like the Afghanistan commitment is not helped by linking it in any way to the Iraq fiasco. The people of Afghanistan deserve better. •

William Maley is director of the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at the ANU and author of Rescuing Afghanistan, published in APO’s Briefings series by UNSW Press. This article first appeared in the Canberra Times.

Photo: View off the rear ramp of a Chinook helicopter flying over eastern Afghanistan. Thomas Brouns/iStockphoto.com
]]> Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:16:00 EDT http://cjneil.tigblog.org/post/167501 -37.8166667 144.9666667-37.8166667144.9666667