Democracy is imperfect but at its heart lies our ability to hit the DESTRUCT button. Part of the imperfection is that when we destroy the incumbents, we kill off some of the good bits and replace them with not much better bits.

That said, democracy is like an Australian bush fire. The destruction of the status quo is part of the life cycle in our special version of public life. Yes, at times we end up with a scorched earth but the result can often be creativity and new growth in the most unlikely places. Renewal. Clover grows out of the crap.

I sense the forces of renewal in Australia and America.

A new era is about to dawn, but I’m not sure what it will be. We’ve been duped on a number of fronts. Being conned is not nice and citizens of the Anglo world need to weigh their choices carefully.

George Bush and John Howard are the living dead. I’m utterly convinced of this.

Democracy is so exhilarating. Breathe deeply and experience the awakening. The oxygen that gets the mind working again. An awakening where you know that no matter what happens, we have the power. At the end of it all, it is us and not them. We give power to them and then we take it away with greater vigour than we give it. It’s in the taking that we gain our greatest strength. We, the people. It’s our moment again.

Every now and then, the people of a democracy have their moment.

Who couldn’t but weep with the Swedish people? In the past few days, the weeping has not been just for Anna Lindh but for Swedish democracy. Sweden is a country with so much to be proud of. A tolerant, open, caring, diverse and pragmatic society. A society were it seems perfectly normal for the Foreign Minister to wander a Stockholm department store unaccompanied.

So much is taken for granted.

In the end though, the Swedes have found this so hard to bear. One of my best friends is Swedish and this weekend he described the feeling from the streets of Stockholm. From Stockholm to Barcelona (where I was), I could hear the incredible strength of his feeling about this tragedy. How could such a beautiful, energetic, intelligent woman be so senselessly slain? She could have been the next Prime Minister. Anna Lindh was the embodiment of all that is good about Sweden.

There was an important poll this weekend. Should Sweden adopt the Euro or not?

For the tens of thousands who turned out on the streets of Stockholm this weekend, the issue of the Euro was insignificant. The important thing was that Swedish democracy is intact and the poll would go ahead.

It is what Anna Lindh would have wanted.

In that sense, the Swedes are like the Australians. Pragmatic democrats. We don’t want extremes and we cherish democracy more than anything else.

Rest in Peace Anna Lindh, because the world you left remembers you for who you were and what you represented.

The white hot fire of democracy burns on. Construction and destruction.

What if we were allowed to dream for a second? Of a world where Anna Lindh and her ideas were writ large? A world where a kind of workmanlike dedication to social justice and pragmatism became pervasive? A world of big ideas and open minds?

That’s my kind of world and it was the world of Anna Lindh. Her legacy will live on, beyond Sweden.

Her mission was accomplished then, despite whatever that bastard intended.

 

Related:  Why conservatives fear John Howard

There seems to be a growing crazy feeling out there that Howard could defeat Bush! Not John Howard but Democrat, Howard Dean.

If this happens, America will be taking the next exit to the left. Off the Bush track and down a different highway.

It has been a big weekend for Howard Dean. All the Sunday US talk shows are talking about him and he’s on the cover of Time and Newsweek.

He’s even started a TV ad campaign in Texas. It opens with “I’m Howard Dean, I’m running for president and I approve this message because I want to change George Bush’s reckless foreign policy…. “. He goes on to ask the question “has anybody really stood up against George Bush and his policies? Don’t you think it’s time somebody did? Visit my web site, join my campaign because it’s time to take our country back”.

Many think Dean is a typical flash in the pan before the primaries start. Maybe so but then again maybe not. Last decade there was a southern Governor by the name of Clinton who many wrote off far too early. The comeback kid.

Dean’s certainly being talked about. He’s in contention and it’s worth considering not only his agenda but his methods. The agenda is very liberal and quite the opposite of the Bush path. He continues to be against the Iraq War:

” It only becomes more and more clear every day what a mistake this administration made in launching a pre-emptive war in Iraq. The evidence mounts that not only did the Administration mislead the American people and the world in making its case for war but that it failed to plan adequately for the peace.”

He maintains an Iraq Truth Center at:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

The 16 questions for George Bush are quite good:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7000&news_iv_ct

Remember, this man could be the next President. He’s also in favour of gay marriage. As governor of Vermont he was early to pass the appropriate legislation allowing it. He outlines huge changes in health and education. He’s liberal all around and presents a clear choice for Americans.

Not a snow balls chance in hell of this guy getting up? I’m not so sure. Those who seek to belittle America more often than not simply don’t understand it. They don’t understand the demographics. I was there in June when it was announced that Hispanics now outnumber Blacks as being America’s largest minority. The point is not that every candidate should speak Spanish, although Howard Dean and George Bush do, the point is that the ever lasting cliche that “America is constantly re-inventing itself” is more true today than ever. America dumbfounds you as it confirms every stereotype and stops you in your tracks as you realise you dont know a damn thing about it at all. The wonderous diversity and complexity! You’ve gotta love it!

Al Gore won the popular vote at the last election. He was supported by both coasts and chunks of the middle. Call it the culture wars, call it what ever you like but America is far from being of one voice on any topic. Its critics too easily fall into the trap of charactarising in the most hideous way they would like it to be rather than the way it really is.

Last night I was stuck in an air conditioned hotel at Frankfurt International Airport in some of the worst heatwave conditions the city can remember. I saw some stupid program on BBC World “What the World thinks of America”. No point in regurgitating it because you’ve heard it all before. They did a run-around of world correspondents and Tony Jones of Australia’s ABC explained to the world why Australians consider themselves to be more “cultured” than Americans. Hhahahahhah yeah really. He made some passing references to the fact that Australians see cheap US talk shows and draw their own conclusions about the American society. I think he even looked down his nose and later sniffed a little. It seems the ABC still takes it’s cues from the BBC! It was superficial crap and once again I felt insulted “by proxy”. Being a friend of America is tough, you need to develop a really tough hide.

The point is that people go on and on about America’s conservatism, conveniently ignoring the coasts and conveniently ignoring that Al Gore won the popular vote in the last elections. To sum up America as illliberal is simply not true. Its all about cognitive economy. People can’t figure out something as big and complex as America so they just resort to lines they learned down pat over the years.

If you don’t like the conservative parts of America then go and live in a liberal part. If you dont like Kingaroy, go and live in Surry Hills. Do we say Australia is Kingaroy or Australia is Surry Hills? Of course not. It’s neither. Just as America is not only defined by San Francisco, California or Omaha, Nebraska.

I actually think the lack lustre economy, ongoing questions about the human and financial cost of Iraq and a bunch of other things will have conservative George Bush in trouble next year. Someone like Howard Dean may just be the man the Democrats have been looking for. He’s engaging, he uses the net, he seems different. Perhaps next year it will seem like time.

He’s raising bucketloads of money and he’s using the internet like no other candidate has before. He has a Blog of his own. He organises “meet-ups” online and all the rest of it.

All gimmicks? Perhaps, but then perhaps not. It depends who wants to engage. So far hundreds of thousands have.

America constantly re-invents itself. Just watch.

***

Clarification: American reader Matt Cezar in Maryland writes:

Harry wrote: “Remember, this man could be the next President. He’s also in favour of gay marriage. As governor of Vermont he was early to pass the appropriate legislation allowing it.”

Governor Dean does not support gay marrianges, he supports civil unions. There is a difference. If he is elected, Gov. Dean will promote civil unions, however the ultimate decision will be left up to the states. Governor Dean never passed legislation legalizing gay marriages. He passed legislation legalizing civil unions for homosexuals.

“When you see all the spectrum at once……what do you see…….yes……that’s bloody right……you see white light. The prisms create rainbows and they are actually beautiful. Looked at as a whole as white light or split through the prisms into rainbows, the light of information enriches us all.” Harry Heidelberg

An American who wrote this week that “It’s hard to imagine you are allowed to write the thoughtless tripe that you do”, apologised after I published her critique.

“This is Heather (Borgmann). Please forgive me for my invective. I have been reading similar stuff constantly since, and before this war began, and the lack of objective journalism really irritates me. I apologize for blowing up at you. I disagree with what you say, but that did not give me the right to throw insults your way.”

I replied:

Hi Heather. I’ve been advising readers since the war began to stay calm, and then I let fly!

The way I see it is this. The world is on the edge of a precipice. And we are all in it together. We can tear each other apart, or do our best to minimise the risk of catastrophe. I put my faith in Tony Blair to convince your government to make the Israel/Palestinian peace process work, and to allow a UN administration of Iraq. These actions would, I believe, give moderate Muslims nations and people the breathing space to stem the rush to extremism that is now occurring by showing that the west is in good faith. Otherwise, I fear the unthinkable – that Arabs and other Muslims across the world will unite to make all of our lives absolute hell. Our children deserve better.

Thank you for your email. Much appreciated. .

This is getting hard to watch and impossible to process. Pro or anti war, many of us are disoriented, recoiling from images of savagery and suffering, and deeply fearful of the future. I let my emotional distress at the war explode into anger this week in Bring our troops home. Angry people hit back at me in Reaction to ‘Bring the troops home”. There’s no hope in that discourse. None. There is limitless hope in Heather’s.

The world order, the standards by which it will operate – in every aspect – and the place of every nation in it is in play. Nothing any of us ever thought was immutable is now safe. The norms of politics, business, war, media, you name it – are on the block. The enormity of what we are witnessing is overpowering.

Ratings show many people don’t want to watch the war. Politicians report that a pall of silence has enveloped their electorates, even on non-war topics like Centrelink or Medicare. I think that as a nation, we’re in shock.

In this period, one temptation is to switch off and tend the garden rather than watch the train wreck, and to rely on John Howard to soothe anxiety through his soft sophistry. He’ll make it OK. People HAVE to believe that, and so they do, for now. Labor offers nothing for them to turn to, and denial seems a sane response, for now.

But from the ruins of the old order, a new one must emerge. With all the balls in the air, everyone has power – just a little bit – to influence an aspect, just a little bit. No-one is in control of this – no-one,including world leaders. It’s important to work out a state of mind that allows you to participate constructively. And it’s important to understand that those who disagree often do so from an equal concern for humanity’s future. It’s reach-out time.

Today, Webdiarist Hugh Driver expresses the feelings of powerlessness and frustration of many in this terrible time. Then two pieces from a man whose intelligence, generosity of spirit and curiosity about the world has long inspired me. Harry Heidelberg writes first of his reaction, as a supporter of the war, to “Bring the troops home”, and them of his thoughts on the plane back to Europe after a brief time in Sydney with his mother just after the war began. It’s a beautiful piece. Thanks, Harry.

***

Hugh Driver in Sydney

In ‘Bring Our Troops Home’ you stated:

“It’s so obvious that what Bush is doing will cause an arms race, not reduce it. No country can hope to beat the Yanks off with conventional weapons – they’ve got air, sea and land completely covered. The only recourse is chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (the Yanks used them in Vietnam, and have not ruled out using them in this war).”

I wasn’t around during the Vietnam war era, but I’ve read a reasonable amount of information on it. None mentioned nuclear weapons – although I understand dropping some on Hanoi was considered. Can you enlighten me on when the Americans used them?

Margo to Hugh

Hi Hugh. Correction now published. An accident. Am publishing a ‘reaction’ Webdiary tonight. Hot under the collar, many are.

Hugh to Margo

“Hot under the collar, many are.”

When truth is the first victim and all those other platitudes, you have to take care.

In terms of collars and heat, where does it get you? At the end of the day, for those of us whose perspective on the war almost entirely through a computer monitor and the TV, do our rants count one way or another?

I’ve seen plenty of gumpf generated about embedded media, alternate news available on the web (does more propaganda from more sources generate greater truth?) and all. Journalists are now writing about bloggers who write about journalists who write about the war. I keep clicking the links, reading different stuff, seeking new bits of information. I have vomited back up a lot of the stuff I’ve digested in discussion board posts, e-mails to friends etc.

What does all this count for? It seems to be one large orgy in which the media and the (increasingly-web-participatory) observers continue play a game separate to the ‘real’ action (ie the war). It’s interesting, but with all the concern over the people in Iraq, the troops, etc – do any of these people benefit from this soapbox sideshow? Do those in power pay attention? Does hand-wringing, pulpit preaching or moral-highground-seizing on any side of the debate have any impact on the situation being analysed? Does bad poetry make the Iraqi children sleep better at night?

Maybe it’s all just about buying off our moral consciences, as if voicing our opinions some how gives us power over a situation which we are completely removed from. What else is it about? Voicing your anger? That strikes me as terribly self-centered.

Changing opinions – as if the concrete hasn’t already set in the heads of many? If you manage to change one person’s opinion, what’s the difference? One more/less person marching on the street? Or even hundreds, or thousands? Do the marches have any impact?

Well, maybe that’s going too far. Protest marches, or lack of them, may have some impact. But there’s still a lot of froth being generated and a hell of a lot of preaching to the converted. A lot of selective reporting and one-eyed argument construction, with hypocrites exchanging accusations of bias and prejudice from their own positions of wilful blindness to inconvenient reports.

I’m not issuing a call to apathy. I’m going to keep track of what’s happening, although I have no illusions that access to truth is proportional to websites surfed, or that the web (or any other media source) guarantees even majority truth content.

I just wonder whether scouring the net, posting rants, sending e-mails, etc etc isn’t just an intellectual exercise that, at the end of the day, counts for very little outside the very, very small circles of consequence that we operate in. Is it just another form of entertainment for modern media junkies?

Some people get off on the TV explosions, combat footage etc – the “pornography of war”. Perhaps others get their kicks by feeding on war-related information flood and perhaps using it to posture and strut their intellect. We’re into it more for the articles than the pictures, right?

Yours in unstructured and possibly incoherent ranting.

Margo To Hugh

Great piece! Can I run it????

You’re right, of course. I’m so worried about the whole thing – I’ve thought for ages we’re staring at WW111 – unsure whether it’s better to have a job which concerns it, or to be away from it all, because there’s nothing any of us can do. Watching the train crash. Adele Horin’s piece made sense though – protests keep the leaders honest, sort of.

Hugh to Margo

Go for it, although I disclaim any accountability for coherence.

***

Harry Heidelberg

The reaction to “Bring our Troops Home” is not surprising. You laid your anti-American cards on the table and made a wild assertion or two. As an individual who supported this war at the outset, I actually don’t have a problem with you saying what you say.

I’m now immune to this stuff. My Italian mate said to me yesterday that the CIA was the world’s largest terrorist organisation. I have now grown weary of this sort of thing. I just smile and say “yep”, without altering my own views at all. I’m prepared to wait.

Perhaps there is such a thing as growing older and wiser. I support the Americans in a lot of what they do but I know they are deeply flawed and have made lots of mistakes. The difference is I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If I see inconsistency in past practice, I do not leap to the conclusion that current thinking is wrong.

I also add that I do not view every aspect of every issue through the Vietnam prism. The baby boomers will always do this.

When your grandfather may have said the Japanese are a cruel race and will never change, the argument is not worth having. You accept the reason behind this perception and know it will never change. The perception is well founded in the past but perhaps not relevant to the present.

It’s the same with much of the anti-Americanism. The feelings are based on a cruel chapter of history and cannot be argued against in a rational way. It’s a waste of energy.

That said, I resent anyone who becomes overly nasty about it. If you think bringing the troops home is fine, then so be it.

Surely now is not the time to shut down debate. Surely in a grave hour, ALL should be heard.

I don’t agree with you Margo, but if there is anything that would send me wild and onto the streets, it would be if we ever reach a situation where diversity of views are not respected.

People need to stop whinging and start accepting responsibility. We are not passive morons absorbing information. We have to actively search for it and reach our own conclusions.

The information in this war is breathtaking in its openness. We have the American view, the Iraqi view, the Al Jazeera view and several things in between which verge on independence. As usual, people will pick and choose but it is a rich smorgasbord of information.

That’s the joy of a free society. You see it all. It also makes it hard. We are challenged to figure it out for ourselves.

At either end of the spectrum, by definition, you have extremes. At one end you have the “this is liberation” camp, at the other end you have the “demon, imperial America” camp. The truth lies somewhere in between.

If there is anything to celebrate in all this crap and misery, it’s that we have full access to the smorgasbord and have every bit of the spectrum analysed. That makes us fortunate indeed.

When you see all the spectrum at once……what do you see…….yes……that’s bloody right……you see white light. The prisms create rainbows and they are actually beautiful. Looked at as a whole as white light or split through the prisms into rainbows, the light of information enriches us all.

Get mad, get passionate, but never, ever try to shut off light or extinguish candles. We need every aspect of this debate fully lit.

PS: Here in middle Europe, “pace” or peace flags are being flown everywhere (bandieredipace). It started in Italy, a flag from every balcony. I think Saddam needs to be overthrown by war, but I fully appreciate these peace flags. Who can like war? Who does not want peace? But who exactly wants Saddam?

***

Flying home from home

by Harry Heidelberg

One of the great features about intercontinental air travel today is that you can tell exactly where you are from your in-seat monitor. You can also order a cappuccino to your seat and a bunch of other things.

I just noticed that the headlights went off as we crossed the border and are once again out of Afghanistan. Normally the headlights of a 747 are only used for take off and landing. For this trip though they were on throughout the part of the flight over Afghanistan. These are huge wing mounted lights, close to the fuselage, that light up the whole front of the aircraft when on.

When you fly over Afghanistan, sealed in a bubble of the highest of western high tech, a Boeing 747, you can’t help but wonder about what might be going on in the ground. More than that, you look at the map and see Bagdhad to the south and wonder how the war is going.

The aircraft now takes live updates from CNN each hour but nothing special is being reported. There’s something about loud explosions heard in Bagdhad but this news cannot be differentiated from the news a week ago. I suppose I could call someone and ask. There are phones in every seat but since I am the only one stupid enough to be awake at this ungodly hour, it would seem impolite to make a phone call.

Asymmetric warfare is taking place all over the world and it is entirely fitting because our world is so asymmetrical in so many ways. Some people can’t get water while others can’t decide which wine they would prefer.

I have just finished a discussion with a flight attendant as to why they don’t supply the proper lap top connection. It seems unfair and unreasonable. My batteries are running low and its 4.18 local time on the ground below. I’m listening to on demand music, flying at 757 kilometres per hour (we are going about 200 km/hr too slow for my liking and I just KNOW we are not going to make up that lost half hour at this rate) at 9900 metres just north of Mashhad, Iran. It’s 5 hours and 14 minutes before touch down in Zurich (4,294 kilometres to Zurich Kloten International Airport). Oh and outside it is minus 55 degrees.

Except for some uncertainty surrounding the lap to connection, I have most things at my fingertips but the map keeps reminding me that this is not a safe world, it is not a contented world. To the north, south, east and west of this aircraft’s current position are trouble spots. Places where peoples lives have been thrown into utter misery.

As an individual, there’s not much I can do about any of it, but at least I have the presence of mind to be aware of it. To be aware of how far there is to travel. To be aware of how far behind so much of humanity has been left in this very unfair journey.

All the buttons and gizmos are held by those at the front. The power seems incomparable and unchallengeable. It would be so if we lived in a world where there was some symmetry or level of comfort with the lack of it.

I’m on my way back to Europe after having been in Sydney for a couple of weeks. I never got round to writing about the war while in Sydney. I was with my mother eating a large prawn laksa at the Laksa House in QVB when the war started. We were sitting under a giant TV eating as a large crowd gathered to see the inevitable ‘Breaking News on CNN’. It’s a moment I will always remember and would have been good to get a photo of. The looks on people’s faces summed up the feeling perfectly. A feeling of tension and foreboding. Not shock, because we knew it was going to happen, but one of foreboding. Now, as we are further into the war, it seems these expressions were predictive. Not a soul of the gathered crowd at the QVB looked happy.

I read Webdiary while at home with my usual high level of interest. I read things I didn’t see elsewhere, including a report from the Russian perspective. I also read things that were reasonably predictable, but somehow comforting. I noticed David Makinson wrote a postcard to our troops. He talked about the colour of the sky in Sydney and how you don’t get it anywhere else.

When I arrived in Sydney it was mid evening and a full moon. The captain said it was a perfect night in Sydney of 21 degrees just before 8.00 pm. hen he said, ‘Cabin crew, prepare the cabin for landing in Sydney’, I had that usual feeling that I have on returning to Sydney. It’s impossible to describe. I was trying to figure out which suburb we were over and then the 747 started turning and I saw Chatswood. Then the full moon rising over a shimmering sea with the Opera House, Harbour Bridge and City below. What a place. What a place to call home.

The next day I saw the dazzling blue sky, so I know what David Makinson is talking about. There is something unique about the quality of the light in Sydney. Artists talk about it as well and you have to be deprived of it for sometime to truly appreciate it.

The war was kind of static for me in the background of my Sydney trip. I didn’t seem to have time to consider it or get into it. I had a fleeting hope that somehow it would be over quickly.

I was in Sydney for two Sundays. On that first Sunday, the Sun Herald had a picture of a soldier and a happy Iraqi. The headline was screaming Liberation. Just one week later the front page was a picture of an injured child and statistics on the mounting toll on all sides.

I’m now flying over trouble spots and back to the real world at three quarters of the speed of sound.

I still have my airline supplied face mask from the Singapore stopover, and reality is coming back to me rapidly.

It’ll soon be dawn over Europe and I’ll be back. Back physically and mentally to reality. Somehow I expect the dawn to be gloomy as we descend through the clouds. There will be no special feeling.

Sydney was great while it lasted.

“I’ll be in Washington on January 20, 2005 when President Dean is inaugurated. This is a must do for me. It’s not a nice to do, it is a must do!” Harry Heidelberg

Harry Heidelberg is a Webdiary columnist and regularly reports to Webdiary on the Howard Dean campaign for US president.

 

TUESDAY, YANKS TIME:

Hi Margo

It sure sounds like you and some of the Web Diarists have been having fun. Great to hear from Polly Bush and Don Arthur in Strange encounters.

It’s pre dawn here in California and I’m drinking coffee as I will every morning this week. My body clock will return to normal just as I am catching the flight back to Europe. Can’t say American dripolator coffee (yeah, they have one in the rooom) is as good as a European espresso. Oh well, better than nothing.

I just watched Al Gore and Howard Dean speaking live from Harlem. Of course New York is three hours ahead of here so it’s looking a lot more like breakfast time on the East Coast.

Al Gore was introduced as the “elected President of the United States” and the crowd cheered. Every single time I see him I think of what may have been. I suspect I am not alone.

Today Al Gore officially endorsed Howard Dean as the Democratic candidate for President. Both Gore and Dean spoke in clear and impressive terms.

There is no waffling at the centre for them. They are in the mode of firing up the core of the Democratic Party. The true believers if you like. Some call the tactic risky, to be so strident and to be so clearly anti-Bush. I think it makes perfect sense.

I think electorates in more than one or two countries are tired of risk free politics. It becomes boring. We want to see politicians take clear non-waffling positions. We want to see them lead and we want to be inspired. A positive, hopeful agenda.

As I’ve said before, I’ll be in Washington on January 20, 2005 when President Dean is inaugurated. This is a must do for me. It’s not a nice to do, it is a must do!

Gore and Dean are clear on the war. Dean is the only Democratic candidate who was clearly against the war in Iraq from the beginning. The others waffled. Gore called it a “quagmire” and I think we will be hearing that word more often.

The election campaign is under way. Later today both Dean and Gore will be flying to Iowa. The famous Iowa caucus, states like Iowa and New Hampshire. States of political history.

George Bush is now to pump record funds into Medicare (focusing on a prescription drug benefit) but it seems this decision has made no change to his popularity. The latest poll shows the country divided with slightly more being against Bush than for him.

PS: WOW

Just saw a dynamite TV ad. It was a Santa Claus. The voiceover was saying “Yes big contributors, this is a very special Christmas for you”. Then the Santa started ticking off things that he would deliver, that interestingly included “more power to big media corporations”. At the end the cheery music stops and you notice the Santa is wearing texas style cowboy boots. Then the voice says, “You see big contributors, your dreams will come true because your Santa is in the White House”. Then a black and white picture of Bush comes up and there is silence.

I know US political ads are often dramatic but I thought that one was incredible.

No punches will be pulled in this campaign.

John Howard is in America, Donald Rumsfeld was in Europe, and it’s the final countdown to war. Meanwhile in the American homeland, the President and the Department of Homeland Security have adjusted the terror alert status to HIGH, indicating a terror attack within US territory is imminent. The increased risk is “specific and credible” based on intelligence from “multiple sources”. Meanwhile over at the Pentagon, the current level of Threatcon is constantly assessed. It’s February 2003. We are anxious and afraid. The 21st century is well underway.

Back in that golden era of the 1990s Francis Fukuyma wrote The End of History and the Last Man. He argued:

A remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism. More than that, however, I argued that liberal democracy may constitute the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government,” and as such constituted the “end of history.”

That is, while earlier forms of government were characterised by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions. This was not to say that today’s stable democracies, like the United States, France, or Switzerland, were not without injustice or serious social problems. But these problems were ones of incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty and equality on which modern democracy is founded, rather than of flaws in the principles themselves. While some present-day countries might fail to achieve stable liberal democracy, and others might lapse back into other, more primitive forms of rule like theocracy or military dictatorship, the ideal of liberal democracy could not be improved on. (marxists)

Optimists like me were drawn to such books. I loved the idea that the end of history had arrived. I knew what he meant. I didn’t take it literally. The acceptance that liberal democracy had triumphed seemed so promising. It was now just an evolutionary matter and in the end the whole world would gravitate toward this kind of progress.

At the close of the decade, I snapped up author signed copies of The Lexus and the Olive Tree. I gave a mate a copy of this book and he loved it, as did I. We chatted about it at golf! In this book, New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman sought to explain globalisation as a system and argued that it had replaced the Cold War system. Friedman is no lightweight, having spent years travelling the globe and spending many years in the Middle East. His view of the direction in which we were heading was compelling. The unusual title of the book was based on the following: “One day in 1992, Thomas Friedman toured a Lexus factory in Japan and marvelled at the robots that put the luxury cars together. That evening, as he ate sushi on a Japanese bullet train, he read a story about yet another Middle East squabble between Palestinians and Israelis. And it hit him: Half the world was lusting after those Lexuses, or at least the brilliant technology that made them possible, and the other half was fighting over who owned which olive tree.”

On September 11, 2001, the olive tree arrived in the land of the Lexus lusters and rather than history ending, it was starting all over again. Of course the declaration of the end of history and the triumph of the Lexus principle proved to be wildly optimistic and premature. That said, I don’t think they were speaking nonsense. When you look at the context of the era in which these books were written, it’s not so hard to understand the optimism.

A lot of what they say may still end up being right. Right now though, it’s hard to see. These days we are more likely to be figuring out the difference between homeland terror alert status and threatcon as we put our terror magnet on the fridge. I can’t remember which threatcon it is when you have to take your shoes off for shoebomb inspection at the airport. It just gets harder all the time. Now they even insist you take your laptop out of its bag. The cockpit doors are now steel reinforced and armed air marshalls may now be on board. There is something deeply ironic about announcements associated with flying “friendly skies”.

I have no doubt America will be attacked, and soon. I travel to America a lot and love the place. The American people are resilient. No matter what happens, they will carry on their lives. Life goes on in this strange jittery new world of increased “terror chatter” and “imminent threat of terror spectacular”.

I think it is correct to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If we do not do this now we will truly regret it in years to come. On the other hand I do not kid myself that this will be any great victory. All the other threats remain and I am sadly convinced the worst is yet to come.

It’s the final countdown. We’re going on a trip. All of us together.

I have a great Swedish friend who I love to mock over Swedish pop music. It has been enormously popular over the years and there is far more to it than Abba. I was in a cafe today with a friend here and the song by the Swedish group “Europe” of “The Final Countdown” came on. I instantly grinned and then couldn’t stop smiling. Understandably, my friend asked me what was so funny. I said that song was so ridiculous and always made me laugh because it reminded me of some very happy times.

Later in the day I heard a news report where Iraq was mentioned and it was said there is a “final countdown to war”. The phrase had instant resonance. Perhaps I will never smile so broadly at hearing this song again.

The lighthearted, invariably upbeat and fun nature of Swedish pop music seems so at odds with the times.

We live in very strange times. It’s hard not to be strange these days. Threatcon, terror fridge magnets, worrying levels of “terror chatter”, terror spectacular. This is not how I imagined the 21st century would be.

We are definitely going on some kind of trip and have no clue how all this will end.

Europe

The Final Countdown

We’re leaving together,

But still it’s farewell

And maybe we’ll come back,

To earth, who can tell?

I guess there is no one to blame

We’re leaving ground

Will things ever be the same again?

*

It’s the final countdown…

*

We’re heading for Venus and still we stand tall

Cause maybe they’ve seen us and welcome us all

With so many light years to go and things to be found

I’m sure that we’ll all miss her so.

*

The most popular song in Switzerland last year was Crying at the Discoteque by Swedish group Alcazar. Especially now, people still want to have fun and escape……

Alcazar – Crying At The Discoteque

Downtown’s been caught by the hysteria

People scream and shout

A generation’s on the move

When disco spreads like a bacteria

These lonely days are right

Welcome the passion of the groove

*

The golden years

The silver tears

You wore a tie like Richard Gere

I wanna get down

You spin me around

I stand on the borderline

*

Crying at the discoteque

Crying at the discoteque

*

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

*

Tonight’s the night at the danceteria

The joining of the tribe

The speakers blasting clear and loud

The way you dance is our criteria

The DJ takes you high

Let tears of joy baptize the crowd

*

The golden years

The silver tears

You wore a tie like Richard Gere

I wanna get down

You spin me around

I stand on the borderline

*

Crying at the discoteque

Crying at the discoteque

*

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

*

The passion of the groove

Generation on the move

Joining of the disco tribe

Let the music take you high

*

The golden years

The silver tears

You wore a tie like Richard Gere

I wanna get down

You spin me around

I stand on the borderline

*

Crying at the discoteque

Crying at the discoteque

*

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

I saw you crying

I saw you crying at the discoteque

I always liked Clinton. From the beginning, through the highs and lows and until the end, I liked him. Just before Christmas he made some comments (refer below).

In the Clinton era, Europeans were happy about the American president. Even in the Monica Lewinsky period, the affection continued and even increased in many quarters. The Europeans appreciated his politics and his view of the world.

The current president is less appreciated. This week his Defense Secretary, Rumsfeld, called France and Germany “old Europe”. Relations are at a new low. To dismiss the the two driving force countries behind the EU, a region of 370 million people, as being the “old Europe” shows the point to which it has come. This approach is ratcheting up anti-American feeling across the continent. The feeling on the streets is strong. Mention America at a cafe and you’ll soon get a scowl.

The comment from Rumsfeld about old Europe was made in the very same week that the entire German and French governments gathered in Versailles to remember their past and reflect on their future. A European identity is emerging and there is no doubt Germany and France – the two powerhouses of Europe – are the key are the key to the new Europe. Britain remains isolated off the coast. A different currency in so many ways.

Continental Europeans are fed up with the attitude of the US. They resent the “you are either with us or you are against us” stance of the US. This is not just the feeling of some. It is the feeling of the overwhelming majority. Most of the governments on this continent, including the two most influential, disagree with the US policy. They feel they should be able to disagree without being branded as an enemy.

The promise of the 21st century for an evolving European identity revolves around multilateralism and faith in institutions. The EU and the Euro could not exist without this mindset. In the past decade or so, Europe has undergone a revolution. Communism has fallen, the EU has been created and continues to expand. A new currency, the Euro, has been introduced seamlessly. All the while, a common identity is forming bit by bit.

Diversity will always be the essence of this continent, but an emerging pride in uniquely European shared values is a feature of the new Europe. Everyone knows the driving force behind the new Europe has been France and Germany.

To call these two countries “old Europe”, is insulting and incorrect. Germany and France are the very essence of the NEW Europe! The new members of the EU will come from the East but they come to join an order that has largely been set by the countries Rumsfeld dismisses as “old Europe”. No one is forcing them to come. They come to join a group of nations with some shared values that are hard to beat.

These “old” European countries are setting an order, a multilateral order, the likes of which this world has never seen. It is too easily forgotten or dismissed.

If Rumsfeld and others feel they can dismiss Europe as “old” or identify the two largest countries as “problems”, they will find they are buying some trouble.

Of course it is true that European and American values coincide in so many ways. Democracy, the rule of law immediately come to mind. After that there is some divergence. Europeans will never give up the social contract. Despite Margaret Thatcher saying “there is no such thing as society”, on this side of the English Channel, society tends to even come before the individual.

This is a continent that has been torn by war and all kinds of turmoil. For Europeans, consensus, social cohesion, fairness, secular rational values and respect for multilateral institutions come higher on the agenda. Europeans are also more comfortable with higher degrees of ambiguity and can see shades of grey. They are particularly aware of anything that smacks of dogma or absolutism.

I feel torn between the two. I’ve lived in the US and know that many cliches about America are totally unfair. On the other hand, as a friend of America, Rumsfeld’s comments made me cringe and drew me much closer to the European attitude.

As the war of words intensifies, I was most struck by the comments of another person I have long admired, Joschka Fischer. This week the German Foreign Minister said in English, “Cool down, cool down”. Cool words from a cool individual. A nice circuit breaker in a trans Atlantic battle that sometimes seems to be getting out of control. Schroeder is not so popular but there is something about Fischer, this Green man who has a knack of saying the right thing at the right time. The four words and the way he delivered them were the most eloquent of this wretched week.

When the only solution seems to be increasing emotion, wild statements and hatred, sometimes it takes someone with vision to see beyond it. Cool down, cool down.

When America was about to erupt right after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy heard the news while at a rally in Indiana. The country was tearing itself apart. Robert Kennedy emerged from his car shaken and announced to the crowd:

“What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black … Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.”

The above he delivered impromptu beside a car. I’ve always thought RFK was remarkable. He was also killed. Europe loved RFK.

There is a practical side to disarming the creep, Saddam Hussein, which I strongly support. I believe he will develop weapons and they will be deployed. That said, I think a strength in difficult times is to listen. Robert Kennedy spoke at a time of crisis in his own country. The world is now in crisis and we would do well to now apply the words he used for his own country to the world.

The question remains how “to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life in this world”?

Doing things together and less sniping between friends would be a start.

***

The United States should lead, not dominate

by William J. Clinton, December 16, 2002

William J. Clinton is the former president of the United States. In this article he echoes former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s Nobel peace prize acceptance speech last week calling on the United States not to act unilaterally but work with the United Nations.

The United States stands at a unique moment in human history, with our political, economic and military dominance. But within 30 years the Chinese economy could be as big or bigger than ours. The Indian economy could be as well if they stop fighting with Pakistan and wasting money on armaments. Within 30 years, if the European Union continues to become more united politically and economically, it will in turn grow more influential politically and economically. Then, in an interdependent world, we can lead but not dominate.

The United States will be judged based on how we used this ‘magic moment’. Did we try to drive the world into the 21st century? Did we try to force people to live by our vision? Or did we instead try by leadership, example and persuasion to build a world in which people will treat us in the future the way we’d like to be treated because of how we acted at our moment of ascendancy?

My mentor, Sen. J. William Fulbright, once said the best thing America could do was to be “an intelligent example of the world through material helpfulness without moral presumption”; that ‘‘we should make our own society an example of human happiness, make ourselves the friends of social revolution and go beyond simple reciprocity in the effort to reconcile hostile worlds”. He said he would far prefer to see us be a“sympathetic friend of humanity rather than its stern and prideful schoolmaster”.

Now, of what relevance is that in the present day? Does that mean America should not have a strong military? No. Does that mean we should never use it? When force is required to save massive numbers of lives? No. But it does mean that we should be humble enough to remember that there are rarely any final solutions in human affairs. Therefore, quite often the way we do something is as important as what we do.

We must recognize that our global interdependence, while a wonderful thing for those of us well positioned to take advantage of it, is still very much a mixed blessing. Our openness to one another in a world full of political, religious, economic and social divisions also increases our vulnerability and intensifies the pain and alienation of those who feel shut out from the blessings of interdependence. After all, on Sept. 11, Al Qaeda used the same open borders, easy travel and access to information and technology that we take for granted to kill 3,100 people from 70 countries, including more than 200 Muslims.

So the question is: What is America’s responsibility at this moment of our dominance?

I believe it’s to build a world that moves beyond interdependence to an integrated global community of shared responsibilities, shared benefits and shared values.

We must support the institutions of global community, beginning with the United Nations. The United Nations is an organization still becoming, still imperfect. We have not always done our part in it, but it is all we have, and now that we live in an interdependent world, it must have our full support in building an integrated global community.

We must have a sound security strategy using the power of America to prevent the actions of and punish the people who mean us harm.

And we must also remember the example of Gen. George C. Marshall and the Marshall Plan, of Sen. Fulbright and the Fulbright Program, and build a world that has more friends and partners and fewer terrorists. That is the purpose of foreign aid and debt relief, of fighting AIDS and putting all the world’s children in school. We should not be too utopian in our expectations, but always utopian in our values and vision.

From the dawn of human society up to the present time, we have been bedeviled by a persistent curse: the compulsion people feel to define the meaning of their lives in positive terms with reference to those who are like them racially, tribally, culturally, religiously, politically, and by negative reference to those who are different. People then feel compelled to oppress those who are different when they are small and powerless enough not to prevent it. Increasingly wider circles of interdependence, however, have taught people to accept the humanity of those they once degraded.

Indeed, the whole course of human history can be seen as a constant struggle to expand the definition of who is ‘us’ and shrink the definition of who is ‘them’. From the dawn of time until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was never really possible to build a global community of cooperation, in which we celebrate, not just tolerate, our diversity, on the simple theory that our differences make life interesting, but our common humanity matters more.

When the United Nations was set up, global community was not possible because of the Cold War. Then, in the 1970s, China started moving toward the rest of the world. In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. So we’ve had just 13 years to work on finding practical expressions of the dream of an integrated community of nations.

To further that goal, we ought to be working with other countries on banning nuclear testing, reducing global warming, establishing an International Criminal Court and strengthening a convention against biological weapons. I am disappointed that the current administration has withdrawn from, or failed to strengthen, agreements in each of those areas. It sends the wrong signal to the world just at the time when we need more and stronger alliances to help us target terrorists and defend our nation.

But despite these setbacks, I remain an optimist. In the last 13 years, the European Union has grown together, the United Nations has proved to have greater capacity to deal with problems in the Balkans and elsewhere; Russia and China have moved closer to the West; the Good Friday Accord was adopted in Northern Ireland; we had seven years of progress toward peace in the Middle East before Yasser Arafat rejected my last proposal, which he now agrees all parties should embrace; and the world’s wealthy nations began to do more, with the global debt-relief initiative and increased funding to fight AIDS.

We have no choice but to learn to live together, to choose cooperation over conflict, to give expression to our common humanity by following simple rules: everyone deserves a chance, everyone has a role to play, we all do better when we work together, we’re not as different as we think.

We do not yet have the institutions to run that kind of world. That is the work of politics, and in that work there will always be differences of opinion, conflicts of interest and values, and as we see today even in the simple evaluation of the evidence.

But, on balance, I think the world is moving in the right direction because it has become inconceivable that we can solve the problems of the world without solving them together. All of us should do our part to see that it happens as soon as possible.

This article was first published in clinton

The so-called “glib aim” of regime change is not about human rights. Improved human rights will be an outcome, but it is not the motivation for the intervention. The aim is not glib. It is a simple statement of fact. The regime will be changed.

Jim Nolan in Take a risk for human rights: Back Bush (webdiary17Jan) argues in favour of a regime change based on Human Rights (HR). Jim is right to remind people of the HR aspects but that is not the core aim of the change. Jack Robertson then set out the pitfalls of this approach in Time for a question change on Iraq (Jack20Jan), and described why he and his ilk own HR more than others who have recently discovered it.

Jack also talks of “dated monster tales about Saddam”. Now I have heard everything. A sort of one-upmanship, “I knew about the monster tales before you did”. The tales are not tales, they are documented facts. Nor are they dated. Such crimes do not date easily. There is a certain timelessness about them in fact. We have seen it before. It’s insulting to call past crimes dated monster tales.

Sometimes it is probably hard to see the wood for the trees. On the days following September 11, there would have been discussions in the US administration about the monumental foul up and how they didn’t see it coming. What do you think would have been said frankly behind closed doors? It would have been a lot of four letter words, anger and an “OK so what do we do now” approach.

This would have led to the conclusion that they need to do everything in their power to prevent even more horrific attacks. It would have taken 5 minutes to come up with the conclusion, “You know we really have to get rid of Saddam Hussein”. The driving force behind this conclusion was the well known fact that he was or is seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. It also follows that he would make such weapons available to terrorists.

It’s kind of like Clinton knew Osama bin Laden was a threat. He even ordered air strikes to try and kill him. In the end it was all put to the side for another day. That other day arrived on September 11. I am certainly not holding Clinton responsible, but the point is sometimes a threat is much larger than you may anticipate. The question then becomes “On which side should we err?”

After September 11, the answer became clear. Let’s not leave much room for error.

This is not about human rights (although that will be a good outcome), it is not about oil (although that too will be a good outcome) and it’s not about a previous war. It is about the situation we face this year. The situation of 2003. It is about the bleeding obvious – the weapons and how to stop them or control them. The doctrine of pre-emption started on September 11, 2001 when the world changed. No one likes the change but it is reality.

People cried that the US was taking a different approach to North Korea over Iraq. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be the fact that North Korea already has the ability to destroy cities in an instant? That relationship is a little more like the Cold War one. It’s not Iraq and it has to be managed differently. It is ridiculously naive to say all threats should be treated alike.

There are a lot of side issues, a lot of theories and some interesting discussion to be had. We can talk about conspiracies, alternative motivation and all sorts of things. I am reminded of Lisa Simpson. In Episode 2F07 “Gampa vs Sexual Inadequacy” Lisa uttered the immortal words referred to as Occam’s Razor. There was a fight in the treehouse as Bart and Milhouse tried to figure out what was going on around them. As usual, Lisa was the only character who spoke any sense:

Bart: OK, it’s not painfully clear the adults are definitely paving the way for an invasion by the saucer people.

Milhouse: You fool! Can’t you see it’s a massive government conspiracy? Or have they gotten to you too? [he and Bart start wrestling]

Lisa: Hey! Hey, hey, stop it! Stop it! Why are you guys jumping to such ridiculous conclusions? Haven’t you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? “The simplest explanation is probably the correct one.”

Yes, it really is about getting the weapons. It may sound glib, it may sound simple but it really is the primary motivation. The side motivations may be interesting fireside talk but they don’t drive the orders.

Jack asks a heap of questions that no one can easily answer. That’s the nature of it. I don’t know anything more than anyone else knows. I’m just a schmuck with a column in Web Diary. My responses to his points are as follows:

1. Roughly how many total casualties – enemy and friendly, military (regular, conscript, militia) and civilian – could an invasion to remove Saddam in the name of Human Rights be reasonably allowed to ‘cost’ before the HR ‘net balance sheet’ moves into negative territory? If this is an unreasonable mode of assessment, define a ‘successful’ invasion outcome.

I do not know how many casualties there will be. The number could be substantial and this is the scariest part. There is no such thing as an HR balance sheet as that is not the reason for the intervention. Success will be measured in terms of regime change (as much as you hate the statement of the “glib” obvious). Regime change will bring about transparency on weapons of mass destruction. If people do not like the language they should suggest alternatives. If they prefer, it is quite easy to replace “regime change” with “violent overthrow of enemy”. The result is the same. Regime change is not a euphemism, it is a stark statement of reality.

2. In describing the invasion’s primary aim as ‘regime change’, what exactly is meant by Saddam’s ‘regime’, and how will the invading forces delineate it? No totalitarian tyrant rules alone; the Iraqi political, social and military system is a network of mini-Saddams, each with commensurate degrees of HR blood on their hands. How will frontline invading forces simultaneously optimise the opportunities for a majority of Iraqi forces to surrender quickly, while applying maximum combat power to those Iraqis, at all command levels, who decide that their historical complicity in the ‘regime that must be changed’ affords them no option but to fight to the death? What worst case percentage of the Iraq population might regard themselves as irredeemably complicit in this way?

Regime is meant in its traditional sense. There was a Nazi regime. All its key elements collapsed and after the war no one was a Nazi. Similarly in East Germany, no one was a former Stasi Agent after 1990. In South Africa, no white admitted to supporting Apartheid after its collapse. When the regime changes, it is amazing how many people sort of forget what they used to be. Most will get off scott free and morph into some other identity afterwards. There will be no total justice. No one says that will happen. Nazi Germany was ruled by “chaos and consent” (as one TV doco coined it). If we were to re-visit that era, no one would suggest those other than at the very top be dealt with. It is impossible to do otherwise. It is not intellectually correct, just practical.

3. Much of the Iraqi civilian population, including women and children, has now been armed and primed for defensive jihad. Will the ROE of the invading forces make any formal distinction between an Iraqi soldier filling a military defensive role and an armed Iraqi civilian who considers herself to be defending her home and her children from a rapacious foreign invader, or will any such distinction be a matter of individual tactical judgement?

I assume we will only find out the ROE afterwards. I am not sure what is meant either by a “formal distinction”. An armed individual who appears threatening to allied forces will be approached as such. I don’t know how else it could work, no matter how painful this reality may seem. Even civilian police forces act this way. Unpalatable but true.

4. What will the ROE be? On what legal basis will this ROE rest? In the case of a non-UN authorised invasion, can the invasion authority indemnify all invading combatants from any subsequent HR-based legal action arising from errors of operational judgement?

Most of the invading combatants will be American. On what grounds can there be HR based legal action against Americans? I mean other than American processes? At this stage anyway I am not so sure a non-UN authorised invasion can take place. American public opinion is against this and a President acts against public opinion in such grave matters at his peril. I think this lesson has been learned. My feeling is that in one way or another the invasion will become authorised.

5. Will the invading force categorically rule out any use of its own weapons of mass destruction, regardless of how the invasion unfolds?

No. This is well known.

6. Which members – at what level – of ‘Saddam’s regime’ suspected of HR abuses will be investigated (and charged, tried and sentenced, etc), and by whom, and how, and when, and within what legal framework? Which members of it will be granted indemnity, and by whom, and within what legal framework?

Top level only. There will be no formal indemnity. Look at what has happened in other HR abuse scenarios. They get the top people (sometimes) and that is about the extent of it. Many or most will go free. There may be a show trial if you are lucky. Another unpalatable reality of the entire process.

7. Is there any time or outcome-based limitation on the presence of the invading/occupying force in a post-Saddam Iraq? Against what HR criteria will eventual military withdrawal be assessed?

HR will not be the criteria for withdrawal as HR is not the intent of intervention. The main criteria is the security of the US and its interests. HR will be taken into account but it is not the decision driver. As soon as security is to an acceptable level, there will be a withdrawal. You have to remember that the global media will monitor every minute of the post conflict aftermath. It is also worth remembering that US interest has a wide definition.

8. Are we now absolutely sure we can only change Saddam’s regime/HR behaviour with a full-scale military invasion?

No, but suggestions would be welcome. It seems the anti-war opinion is just that. Anti. There is no statement of what the anti lobby favours as an alternative. Is the alternative to war, peace? Perhaps. It would be very reassuring if that were true. The fear is that alternative to war and regime change in Iraq is a catastrophic attack on an American or European city brought about by weapons produced in Iraq. The odds of that outcome should be seriously weighed before conclusively stating that nothing should be done other than inspections of dubious value. Before 9-11, much was considered unthinkable. After 9-11, unthinkable outcomes become sadly more believable. It may seem simple and it may seem glib but I don’t think those responsible for planning this really feel that way.

It is easy and healthy to express doubts and ask questions. In the end though, some are called upon to take decisions amidst uncertainty. That’s the nature of it.

Only a soldier could answer Jack’s military questions and a lawyer the legal ones.

 

Outsource, then backsource

by Harry Heidelberg

Sometimes you have to wonder about the intentions of government policymakers.

The intentions are really important because as a citizen, who admittedly can’t vote, I’d like to know the real background of stuff ups and major debacles. If we find that the intentions behind policies such as going soft on financial regulation or outsourcing are to cosy up to big business, then we have the right to feel defrauded.

The role of the policymakers should be to assure our long term interests. The broad interests, not the narrow ones. The other side of it is ideology. Policy driven by ideology is some of the most dangerous of all. We’ve seen that all over the world.

In Britain, the privatised rail system is dangerous, unreliable and outrageously expensive. No one understands why all that had to happen. In continental Europe many countries have railway systems with near perfect safety records, trains that run so exactly to time that you could set your watch by them and fares that are well priced in relation to local living costs. These systems are in government hands where the mission is to provide safe, reliable and fast transport for the community as a whole. Everyone understands that and loves it. It is even a source of pride for the community. A symbol of a country that works.

This is where I lose interest in ideology. I do support a lot of the neoliberal agenda – but I want safe trains that I trust. I want a working community, not a shambolic mess. Let’s just do what works and toss the ideology out the window.

This doesn’t mean reforms shouldn’t be made, and nor does it mean that the government always does it better. What it does indicate is that a little less slavish addiction to the fads and a little more measured analysis would go along way.

I’m in business, not government so my fear is of fads. Outsourcing was a big one. Like all fads there’s something to it, something a little bit hard to resist. Suddenly you feel that it’s all so obvious. I mean, it seems to make sense that some large company specialising in providing IT services would be able to provide a cheaper service (because of scale) and free your business to worry about real issues such as the core business. IT is just a service after all, and it would be nice to take it off the minds of management and give it to a professional outfit to organise. Besides, everyone is getting sick of the IT people. Let’s stop taking up so much time on IT issues and focus on more important things.

This is where it starts to become dangerous. The outsourcing company will most likely be a gigantic multinational filled with slick PR people and compelling presentations. People will sit in darkened corporate conference rooms watching PowerPoint, slide after slide. People will nod knowingly when they see projected cost savings. Then all are convinced and the negotiations start.

First of all, if you are really big you have to figure out the cost of making your own IT people redundant. No worries, says the gigantic provider. To ease the pain of killing off your own, they will even agree to take some of them. Wow. It’s almost even socially responsible.

The contracts will be drawn up with service levels agreed. This is the assurance that you will get service exactly as you expect and that it really is so much better than you could do yourself. And all at lower prices!! What a great deal!! The hand then signs the paper and the fate is sealed.

Pretty soon you find out you’ve lost some control. In fact you’ve lost a lot of control. Some of it is even intangible. You don’t control a third party employee as you would your own. It all becomes so messy and complicated. IT users start complaining that things aren’t as they were and the gigantic outsource provider starts cheating.

Yes, cheating. For every service issue you have they say they will open a “ticket”. The ticket shows what the problem was, how it was solved and how long it took to sort out. The combined data of the tickets proves how well the outsource provider is doing say on a help desk function. They always cheat with the tickets though. Opening and closing them at times at a variance to reality. Always to make themselves look better. The pressure becomes more and more.

Then you have to bring it all back in and hire new IT people. You have to backsource it. You realise that the article you read in the business magazine about the latest fad actually had some pitfalls. You gather people in a darkened corporate conference room. You turn on the Powerpoint projector again and start, “Today people recognize that IT is a strategic part of the business, an element that is so critical for our future strategy is one we should clearly have in house and have full control over”. Then everyone nods knowingly and you get out of the mess of the IT outsourcing fiasco.

I’m sceptical of outsourcing, even in the business context. If someone asked me about government, I would say that only in rare cases should it be outsourced. IT is not the same as who does the gardens or who takes out the garbage. It’s a little more strategic than that, and it becomes dangerous to give it to outsiders.

In my own company we are backsourcing something right now. For some reason it was decided that an aspect of customer service could be outsourced. The outsourced company was to evaluate complaints and where necessary process refunds or take corrective action to satisfy our customers.

At first glance it seemed OK, because we are totally dedicated to ensuring that if something goes wrong the customer has somewhere to turn and is well treated. The problem became that the provider started making mistakes. Angry customers became angrier. The whole purpose of it was supposed to make customer service SMOOTHER!! Refunds were going astray and some were even being made twice. The worst part was, as with IT outsourcing, the loss of control.

This only happened over the space of a year but we know now it was a mistake. We started to lose contact with the customer and really dig deep into the reasons why some were dissatisfied. We had much less idea of what was really happening and felt we couldn’t trust the provider. When a third party is doing it it is never the same. So now we are bringing it back to where it belongs – inside the company. They are our customers and we’ll deal with them directly. It seems simple, but someone forgot that part.

You mentioned the basket case of Coles Myer (HIH: Will Costello be nailed?, webdiary17Jan). My mother lives interstate and used to have a Myercard. She was a long time customer and remained reasonably loyal. One year, Coles Myer thought it would be clever and cool to have GE Capital do their store card business. It’s not technically an outsource but it is the company passing an internal activity to a third party.

GE Capital is global and knows how to run things efficiently. They know it is cheaper to host customer service in India. Then the day comes that my mother has the only significant problem she has had in 20 years with them. She calls customer service and gets into a debate about what should be done. Strangely, the person in India seemed distant and unable to address the local concern my mother had. She closed the account and doesn’t shop there anymore.

I don’t particularly care if Coles Myer is a basket case. Other companies will take over the things they do so poorly. Business is allowed to experiment. If they get it wrong, they’ll lose profits.

In government it is different. I don’t think experimentation there is so wise!! When government mismanagement creates a basket case scenario, then it affects us all. Those responsible should be held accountable.

I wonder how long we will remember this time. Three years or four? As the eighties turned into the nineties there were many collapses. Bond was jailed, Skase was on the run, two State banks had collapsed and Victoria was generally a basket case. Let’s face it, Canberra had to bail out Victoria.

I’m old enough to have corporate memories of that era seared into my psyche. As a youngster of 20, I went to a huge corporate party on October 17, 1987, the so-called Black Tuesday when stock markets collapsed. The next day I was still around Australia Square as crowds gathered in Bond Street to watch the Australian market collapse on the then Sydney Stock Exchange.

As I watched, I felt quite uneasy about the future – even as one so young. Later some guy landed in Australia Square after having jumped from somewhere above level 40. Years later I used to show people where it happened. It took them a long time to properly get the blood out of the paving. I didn’t see the actual jump happen but I saw the consequences and didn’t forget it. I finished my studies, including a subject on ethics, with this day in mind – the stock market collapse and one person’s final act.

There were even movies about the era and Gordon Gekko’s famous quote, “Greed is Good”, become infamous.

In the early 1990s I was in the USA and seconded to the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). The RTC had a mission of bailing out troubled savings and loans institutions. It was a debacle that cost the US government billions. Ordinary people were horrified at the excesses and the consequences.

I was also horrified. Sitting in a midwestern suburb trawling through records with angry customers picketing was something I didn’t forget. The customers got their money back because the US government (who I was in effect working for) made sure of it. The taxpayers were screwed. Uncle Sam paid for every penny while the criminals got away with so much. I counted the losses for Uncle Sam. What a debacle, and a dreadful way to run a country.

Later that year I worked in the city hall of a major metropolitan area sifting through WIC (Women, Infants, Children) grants. There were so many conditions the city had to fill to extract this money from the federal government. It was a contrast to the savings and loans situation where the money flowed quickly. Some people had louder voices than others.

When I got back to Australia, the large accounting firms had enormous law suits against them. The figures were staggering. I was seconded to a litigation support project in Sydney. The firm I worked for was being sued over a collapse of a merchant bank, one of many cases they had against them.

I wasn’t involved in the original audit, but was asked to try and piece it all together. It was a farce. There was nothing to piece together. There were too many records missing and I strongly believe I had been sent on a fools errand. I couldn’t find anything to help, only things that would hurt our case.

A bit later, a colleague was on the audit of a developer. It was clear it would collapse. They had prepared workpapers documenting their concern about the client’s ability to continue as a going concern. When an audit report is signed it is implicit that the company will continue to be a going concern for a year. You can’t have workpapers on file that don’t support that view. The workpapers were later changed to support the clean audit opinion. Criminal, in my view.

After all these sort of things happened it was said we needed to focus on risks. Aaaah, yeah, right whatever. We were doing that in the past anyway, but no one wanted to know. No one that mattered.

For me the fact that we went through all of this in the late 80s and early 90s is enough. Shouldn’t this sort of level of scandal be only something you see once in a generation, or once in a career?

I’ve now seen it twice, and I don’t want to see it a third time. Scandals 12 years ago and scandals again now.

The people responsible were not really dealt with the first time around and they are not being dealt with this time. When I say dealt with, I mean imprisoned. I do not mean send the patsy to prison, send the real ones there. I am not one to go for elaborate conspiracy theories but there is definitely something rotten at the big end of town that needs to be rooted out once and for all.

Twice is enough in one career. I’m now afraid for the entire system and I don’t know what can replace it.

I agree with you Margo on your ethics suggestions (see Ethics overboard: How to promote integrity in the moment of choice at webdiary14Jan). We need more external involvement. Good players have absolutely nothing to fear. Ethical organisations should jump all over your suggestions. They can set themselves apart.

We also need watchdogs with teeth and people with missionary zeal to lead them. Alan Fels remains a bit of a hero of mine. Time magazine named three women as people of the year for 2002 – the whistle blowers of Enron, Worldcom and the FBI. The woman at the FBI highlighted the fact that the flight school concern was well known but not acted on. The Enron and Worldcom women tried to right wrongs and finally went external. People who tell are dobbers. In our culture this is even worse than elsewhere. You have to be one of the boys and any hint of disloyalty will be punished severely.

I haven’t been a dobber. What does that make me? Top marks for culture but a failure on ethics?

We need to re-examine our culture. People who tell are not always disloyal. It is possible they are the most loyal of all. I am absolutely sure of that. They are the people who believe the PR and the mission statements. They really believe it, only to find out later that it means nothing.

We need more people who will tell and we need people who will listen, because unless we have both the whole thing will happen again, probably around 2010.

Of course if we had a working system informants wouldn’t be so essential, but since we have lax regulation and poor corporate governance we have to design back-up systems.

The theme of the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week is “Building Trust”. The foundations of the entire system are at stake and unless trust can be built (the real and sustaining way), I fear for the future. The lack of trust must be not only recognised, but addressed. The Davos thing is a talkfest, but what if it became a reality? What if we really found ways to build lasting trust?

Now that would be exciting and new. It has to be actions though, government has to act swiftly and meaningfully. Don’t just leave it to a few companies who are smart enough to see the competitive advantage in ethics – ram it home to the recalcitrants.

And for those who don’t want to play, send them to jail. If we show zero tolerance for mugging or speeding, let’s also show zero tolerance for crimes that ruin thousands of lives. Corporate corruption is criminal, and we need to root it out.

PS: The opposition needs to get off their fat, lazy arses and campaign like crazy on these issues. Why is it all off to the side only of interest to some – this should be bringing the government down. Maybe that is taking it too far, but I am FED UP with this crap!!! People need to be thrown in jail and governments need to be tossed out or answerable in some way. I want to know where the sense of outrage is. It seems strangely muted on all sides, almost like it is expected or accepted. It shouldn’t be this way!! Is this also about money?

The point where I stopped reading Carmen (Proud to be ‘juvenile’, webdiary16Jan) was when she quoted something from The Guardian. Perhaps it is no worse than me quoting The Economist, but it is indicative of a gap I see. A big gap. The Guardian is a tired old London rag.

OK – I have read the rest of it, and Vietnam comes up yet again. I do not see the Vietnam experience being repeated in US foreign policy. It wasn’t in the first Gulf War, in Kosovo or Afghanistan. Nor will it be in Iraq this time around.

Carmen and those like her take the easy road. Target the US, offer no alternative solution and mush around in nostalgia for their youth, when they were weaned on very well founded anti-US sentiment. They are all products of the Vietnam trauma. I can understand it, but it does cause a distortion of reality.

Carmen says: “The momentum appears unstoppable and it’s my impression that many Australians have been lulled into a false sense of security about the Howard Government’s real intentions.” What kind of nonsense is this? There is no false sense of security. Everyone knows the Howard Government’s real intentions. Carmen alludes to a hidden agenda but she doesn’t spell it out.

The only agenda I am aware of is that Howard is a strong backer of the US, making him just the same as British Prime Minister Blair. Bush, Howard and Blair want a regime change in Iraq. It’s pretty simple. Where is the hidden part? Where is the false sense of security?

Carmen also comments that the US does not allow inspections of its own weapons of mass destruction. This is where all respect goes out the window. Some type of equivalence is being suggested between the US and vicious dictatorships. Iraq is a rogue state. The fact that a unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council put the weapons inspectors in there in the first place is evidence of this. What purpose would be served in inspecting US weapons of mass destruction?

Then again, I suppose the UN only voted that way because America made them. It’s a zero sum game with the States and it’s always their fault. What a terrible world we live in. All created by Uncle Sam and his devious plans.

All would be fine if nothing was done. A bit of inspecting over there, a little more over here and we’ll all live in love and peace. The whole thing is a ridiculous charade. It is naivety in the extreme to think that there is not a significant threat of these weapons being released and used. Who really believes that Saddam Hussein is not likely to give or sell weapons to terrorists?

Exactly when will the inspections end? Let us imagine that the US just sat back and did nothing from this point. Would Hans Blick get up and say on Day X that the inspections are over and nothing much has been found? Let’s say he did that. Then what happens? I suppose all can relax and the world can go back to business as usual. We would be able to be so serene in the knowledge that nothing was found and the threat had passed. We could then just ignore Iraq and know that the whole thing was just a silly over reaction on the part of the United States.

Then in about two years from now when the weapons are sold to terrorists and deployed, killing say, three hundred or four hundred thousand people in a day or so, we could conclude that perhaps the inspectors didn’t find everything.

I think what is wanted is that at the MOMENT the weapons are sold or a millisecond before they are used, some action is taken. It’s an interesting approach. A sort of “let’s wait until the very last minute” thing. Let’s hope that last minute is well chosen.

So it seems the whole issue is about timing. Now is a tad early. If we wait until JUST the right time, perhaps it can be justified. Or taking it even further, let’s do nothing and wait until weapons are sold, released or used. Only THEN will we know we are justified. Only THEN will we know the mistakes of Vietnam are not repeated.

Protest is fine and should be encouraged. I don’t think it is juvenile, but I do think there is more than a hint of nostalgia about it in this case. I hope she had a nice day out on the water. I think Dr Lawrence is understandably moved by her historical association with encouraging Vietnam conscripts to tear up their “draft cards” (is that really what they were called in Australia or was that from Born on the Fourth of July? It all becomes so confusing).

This is not the 1970s. It is not about Gough Whitlam ending the Vietnam War all by himself. It’s not about conscription and sending 19 year olds into Vietnamese jungle for slaughter.

This is the 21st century. New York City has been attacked. Thousands dead. Australians have been attacked in Bali. There is an international network of extremists actively working to bring about “terror spectaculars”. The UN agrees that Saddam Hussein presents a real threat and should be disarmed. That’s why the weapons inspectors are there in Iraq. The United States has an overwhelming force. Australia is looking at supplying highly trained, career dedicated SAS resources plus some frigates and planes.

This is 2003, not 1973. A child born on the day Carmen encouraged the tearing up of “draft” cards would now be 30, heading into middle age. For such a child, the Whitlam government meant nothing. It was a long time ago that people were tearing up “draft” cards but no generation is quite so entitled as the Baby Boomers to own this current 21st century moment. After all, they are the entitled generation.

I suppose it is all part of the far reaching conspiracy of the American military industrial complex. They killed JFK and were responsible for Vietnam. Oliver Stone told me so. He’s a baby boomer and he’d surely know the truth.

Will we ever be free of that generation?