Wednesday, April 14, 2010

A dangerous silence

This op-piece by Ed Koch, former mayor of New York supports what I was trying to say in my previous post.
(Just click on the title)
A dangerous silence

Obama and Israel

In the lead up to the American election in 2008 one of the main accusations made by the Republicans was that Obama lacked both international and political experience.  Well he’s gaining the experience now, but at a cost. Obama is a visionary, but visions need to be put into action, that requires pragmatists. Pragmatists (as opposed to realists, which seems to be a boast more that a label) can say no, this won’t work and then work toward achieving something like what was wanted or next best thing.
Obama wanted to change America’s standing around the world. In Europe, that wasn’t difficult. Firstly, he wasn’t George. W and secondly the Europeans got caught up in the Romance of the Obama election victory.  They understood both how incredulous the victory was and what the social ramifications could be.
The Arab Middle East is not Europe;  and Middle Eastern politics is a completely different reality. The guy kissing you warmly on both cheeks is as likely to plotting your death as what to offer you to eat.  The modern political states are colonially imposed realities, and now Islam is quickly replacing Arabism as the major expression of self-identity across the region.
Would they like Obama because he is black and his father was a Muslim? Well the fact that his father was a Muslim works against him. His father‘s religion determines his religion according to Islam (and Christianity). He has therefore rejected the religion. Interestingly enough being black doesn’t work for him in an area where the blacks are openly seen as inferior. He was never going to be greeted as a folk hero, but was definitely seen as more amenable to the Arab voice.
Incidentally this amenability does not always generate a grateful reaction and can often be seen as a weakness. Promises for money, is easy money, because those promises are made in English for those people.  The American way of buying approval doesn’t work in the Middle East. Americans deal with the governments. These governments are largely distrusted by the people.  The Arab state that has a modicum of democracy is Lebanon and they are being held hostage by a terror organisation (as is the whole south of the country which had traditionally been the Christian part of the country).
After more than a year in power, Obama’s standing in the Arab countries has not changed. His obvious conclusion was that it must be because of the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict and more specifically Israel. He did not conclude that it might be because in that year in power not only has American not reduced its troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan, in fact the opposite. They have been increased.  Yet Obama seems to believe he has credibility. I suggest that Obama’s posturing has led the Arabs to surmise that they may be able to achieve much by sidling up to him. The question is, who will play who? The wilier side will.
For this reason Obama’s posturing on Israel and Iran has been particularly instructive.  The nuclear issue and Iran is one that is extremely worrying.  Almost 70 years ago a charismatic leader of a nation was seen as using hyperbole when saying he would wipe out the Jews, while flexing military muscle in direct contradiction to the terms of treaties that Germany had signed. As the Sudatenland fell, the world did nothing. 65 years later a charismatic leader of a nation makes the same claim about the Jews (using much of the same language in describing them), flexes his might by developing a nuclear weapon in contempt of the treaty to which it is a signatory. If he threatened to wipe out all Christians, or even infidels, the reaction would be very different. J ‘accuse. The world does not see the threat.
Does the blame lie with Israel, or has Israel been painted into a corner? A country that fits into Tasmania 3 ½ times with a population of 5 million surrounded on 3 sides with 22 Arab states with a combined population of about 200 million. With the West Bank in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, Israel is 14 kilometres across at its narrowest point. This is right across the centre of the country, between the West Bank town of Tulkarem and Israel’s fourth border, the Mediterranean Sea. This is a country that has faced 4 multi-front wars and 2 less-fronted wars, 2 intifadas, 1 war of attrition and ongoing war of attrition up to today, is expected to make concessions.
 Israel justifiably is a little worried about its security. No one else seems to be.  Obama called on Israel to halt all settlements on the West Bank, without defining the terms, or even checking what had been agreed upon in the past. That call was further than any Palestinian leader had gone since their recognition of Israel.  At best this was reckless and irresponsible and worst it could lead to armed conflict.  Hamas declaring an up scaling of its conflict with Israel and Fatah considering a new Intifadah, a sure indication that they feel they have public sympathy.  
An Israel, friendless, despite assurances this week commemorated Holocaust Memorial Day.  It is a  sharp reminder how the Jews were expendable.  This week coming Israel will commemorate Remembrance Day for its fallen soldiers immediately followed by its Independence Day.  All of these days interconnect not just historically, but more importantly they are interconnected in the collective Israeli psyche.
Can an Israel, with this psyche, attempt to bomb Iran nuclear plants?  Yes. Should they? Well, I just say, they shouldn’t have to.  To Obama I say do a bit of reading. Speak to people who know. You have people around you who have been there and done that. Dennis Ross is a good example.  I am sad to admit that after 1 year in power Obama has reduced the trust between the 2 countries to zero.

K-Rudderless.

In one of my previous posts I ridiculed the Liberal Party for choosing an unelectable Tony Abbot as its leader.  Now, although I still believe him ultimately unelectable, he is in there with a chance. Kevin Rudd has somehow managed to turn an imploding Liberal party into a united party by shooting himself in the foot, toe by toe. If he has a spin doctor, he should have his political allegiances’ checked. In this election year, several alarm bells should be going off for our leader.
Firstly, he comes across and still looks like and dresses like, teacher’s pet.  It is not the sort of character Australians necessarily warm to. However they were sick of the ‘class nerd’, Howard.  There is no doubt that Rudd is intelligent. We know he feels at home with diplomats and speaks Legalese, Diplomatese and fluent Chinese. His few attempts to be blokesy or folksy sounded so unnatural they were held up for ridicule It may be unfair, he may be a great guy, but I have to admit, I’d rather have a beer with Tony Abbot.  Even though I disagree with much of what he says and thinks, he comes across as someone you could have an interesting discussion with and not come out feeling like you were being condescended to.
Secondly, Rudd lacks a rudder. He seems to go where the media directs him. He has been reactive rather than pro-active.  Abbot came to power with a party seriously split. Forced to back down from a promise their previous leader had given on the ETS. More than 50% of Liberals supported the ETS. However, Abbot was allowed a Honeymoon period in which he managed to equate the ETS with a “Great Big New Tax on Everything”. There was no attempt to explain the ETS to the public as a response and therefore every Australian today can chant the mantra that the ETS is a Great Big New Tax. The eventual Liberal alternative plan was farcical, but never seized on by the government. It was never compared to the ETS to show that the opposite was in fact true. Liberal spin doctors managed to change the discussion to “Insulation-gate”. It was something that Rudd should have nipped in the bud and Garrett should have been the political collateral sooner rather than later.
The strange apology for not doing enough, or for not doing what he promised, or whatever it was for, left me dumbfounded. After a few days of niggling from the opposition the Prime Minister removed his foot from his mouth to replace it with the other.  It reinforced a feeling that Rudd reacts to his perception of the polls. The problem with public apologies is that they need to be backed up with public action.
The health plan seemed like a grab for headlines. If proposing a federal takeover from the states, the minimal amount of homework would have required him to check in with the states, especially since they are all Labour states.  The Education plan on the other hand, while coming under some criticism from Teachers Unions and schools, but seems to be accepted by the public at large. Perhaps because this is under the control of Julia Gillard who sounds like a Primary school Principal when speaking, or perhaps because she seems to be in control.
This should be Rudd’s third alarm bell. I am not familiar enough with the internal machination of the federal Labour party to know why Rudd holds the stick over Gillard, but I imagine that eventually that will become irrelevant. Rudd is clearly seen in the minds of most Australian as the visiting Australian Prime Minister, while Gillard is seen as Prime Minister of Australia.
The fourth alarm bell was fired off recently by the Liberal party calling for restricting immigration. This call was made on the basis that this year’s number of immigrants was unsustainable as a level of immigration.  I would challenge that fact, but that will be another post, but the obvious answer to that is that there is no data to support the assertion that this figure would be repeated. 
Australia is a country built on immigration. European migrants, who arrived as refugees after World War 2, would not be allowed into Australia under today’s laws.  We are part of a world treaty on refugees as well as many regional ones. We fulfil our obligations under those treaties. That has been true of Australian governments across the political spectrum since 1972.
Immigration should not be confused with the refugee issue. Immigration is the people that we allow in.  Having tried unsuccessfully to bring my wife and son to Australia, I know how difficult it is to immigrate to Australia. The business community were quick to condemn the Liberal policy, but guess what Kevin did. He seemingly backed the Liberals. I am also quite vary that this issue will explode into a race issue in the next election campaign.
Generally speaking Rudd is surrounded by very competent people. It is the redeeming factor of this government.  Gillard, Smith and the very versatile Junior Minister Greg Combet and Lindsay Tanner do their jobs and others.  Luckily for them, Tony Abbot will always be unelectable to some and raise a question mark with many others. He is backed by Julia Bishop who seems to like being deputy to everyone. Joe Hockey, likeable, but not seen to be in Abbot’s camp.
 A party that his healing, but still deeply wounded needs to be put to  the sword by a party in power that would win an election if held today. If I was Kevin I would introduce that great American value of bi-partisanship looking for cooperation outside of the usual committee room, cooperation for the benefit of Australia, thus diffusing the ability if the opposition to attack government policy and exploiting any splinters in the opposition.
My feeling is that Rudd is busy doing something, but doesn’t seem to control the country. He controls the party and shines at question time, where his condescending sarcasm is appreciated. I hope he can change that image or turn it over to the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard.