Trevor Cook

Hugh White on China's rise (Govt 2116)

 

China and human rights (Govt 2116)

 

The new multilateralism of climate change | The Climate Institute

Today I want to make three main points:

1.    Copenhagen didn't go backwards, it did go forward but not as much as was hyped or hoped.  This was because of crucial misunderstandings and new developments in climate geopolitical factions.
2.    We need a glass half full approach to the Accord and climate negotiations, not just because it is the only one we’ve got but also because of developments before and after Copenhagen.
3.    Filling the rest of the glass requires delivery of
a.    fast start finance commitments made in Copenhagen,
b.    a new approach to climate multilateralism, its forums and its factions and,
c.    even more important than ever, credible domestic policies

At the core of the challenge of the new climate realpolitik, the new climate multilateralism are two questions:

·    Is an all embracing legally binding treaty possible or required to drive the much stronger action we need?
·    Will Australia and others be creative and committed enough, amongst souring domestic politics, to play a constructive role?  Or will Australia drift back to old factions, a narrow focus, and even worse back to being a millstone on climate negotiations.

via www.climateinstitute.org.au

Malcolm Fraser at the Lowy Institute

On the occasion of the publication of his political memoirs, the Lowy Institute was pleased to welcome former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser for a conversation on Australian foreign policy. From the Vietnam War to the Afghanistan War, from international law to the treatment of refugees, Mr Fraser discussed the meaning of liberalism in the global context. He was joined on stage by Michael Wesley, the Institute’s Executive Director.

via www.lowyinstitute.org

I'm no fan of Fraser's political career, but I listened to the podcast version of this presentation and it was fascinating. He's got some interesting things to say about the lack of vigorous political debate on some foreign policy issues in Australia (Iraq, asylum seekers), on the Australian - US relations (he argues that there is no benefit from just going along with them), engagement with Asia (we should do a lot more of it) and more.

Govt 2116 - week 5 - defence spending

Here are some links to recent media articles that you might like to read:

Sam Bateman - A bleak outlook for defence spending

Hugh White - Intriguing passages in the defence white paper

Jim Molan - Defence debate: repair the defence forces first

Dept of Defence - Media releases from the launch of last year's white paper

Larvatus Prodeo - Blog commentary

 

The death of humanitarian intervention?

Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo were all crises that the humanitarian interventionists embraced; largely indifferent to their particularities, they saw them as part of a single phenomenon—the moral bankruptcy and extreme violence of many post–Cold War regimes. They called for the use of force—for going to war (although they shied away from calling it war)—if that was what it took to prevent mass human rights violations. While they generally preferred that force to be sanctioned by U.N. approval, they were often ready to urge the United States and other Western democracies to take the lead and go it alone if necessary.

Yet even by the time World Freedom Day was proclaimed, the difficulties of knowing when and how to make sympathy for one’s fellow men the basis of hostilities had already given some of these liberal hawks pause for thought. The invasion of Iraq divided them. That several of them gravitated toward the Obama camp during the 2008 presidential campaign was not surprising. Yet as President Obama winds down the rights rhetoric and the democracy initiatives of his predecessor, he is also marking out the rather modest limits of their influence. A new era of pragmatism seems to be in the making, and the concept of humanitarian intervention is dying if not dead.

via www.worldaffairsjournal.org

Govt 2116 - Afghanistan

Here are some links to recent commentary that might be useful for tutorials (in addition to readings recommended in the course outline) during the week beginning Monday 22 March 2010:

Greg Sheridan - US Strategy in Afghanistan deserves more than lip service

Businessweek - Australian Forces Work to Secure Afghanistan’s Uruzgan Province

Bruce Haigh - Different war, same mistakes

 Stephen Smith - Ministerial statement on Afghanistan

Hugh White - The great powers and afghanistan

 

Kevin Rudd | Foreign Policy

Just before Christmas, Kevin Rudd hosted 100 or so foreign affairs specialists for evening drinks on the lawns of Kirribilli House in Sydney, the harbour splendid in the background. Representing 22 countries - the US, China, Japan, Indonesia and right across South-East Asia, India, Latin America and Russia - they had come to discuss the Prime Minister's pet project, his idea to reshape the region's diplomatic architecture into the Asia-Pacific Community.

via www.smh.com.au

Interesting overview but I'm not convinced that Rudd's 'control' of foreign policy is a big deal

China's new hard-line

Until very recently, many western politicians, bankers and business people were broadly optimistic about the rise of China. They assumed that as China became more developed it would become more western. As it integrated into the global economy it would play a constructive role in multilateral institutions, help western governments sort out key foreign policy challenges and permit a more open society. China's leaders seemed to understand that the economic development of their country required friendly relations with the US and other major powers.

The EU's leaders shared this optimism. But over the past year China's behaviour has changed. Relatively hard-line and nationalist elements in the leadership appear to have sidelined those with liberal and internationalist instincts. This shift is spurring the EU's governments and institutions to reappraise their China strategies.

via www.cer.org.uk