Newsletter: Week 11, 2023
Newsletter: Week 11, 2023
A clearer, less reactive, understanding of hegemony, a frank discussion of the invasion of Iraq, and why public broadcasters should seek objectivity over impartiality
Nationalisms, Hegemons, and Clearer-Thinking
This week I published a piece on whataboutery and George Orwell’s essay Notes on Nationalism. Around the same time that I was publishing it, former Australian prime minister and AI insult generator, Paul Keating, was giving a masterclass at the National Press Club in the psychological disposition that Orwell describes. Orwell notes in his essay that nationalists – a broad term he uses for anyone tribal, with this tribe not necessarily a nation-state – are obsessed with “great power units” as the only genuine and legitimate entities in the world.
Demonstrating this perspective, Keating made an extraordinarily blunt – and deeply offensive – illustration of his worldview by stating: “Running around the Pacific Islands with a lei around your neck handing out money, which is what Penny [Wong – Australia’s foreign minister] does, is not foreign policy. It’s a consular task. Foreign policy is what you do with the great powers. What you do with China. What you do with the United States.”
Keating was speaking at the Press Club primarily about the AUKUS agreement to provide Australia with a new fleet of nuclear submarines that had gained greater detail this week. Keating has a reflexive anti-Americanism and a naïve view of China that drives his thinking (not to mention a callous indifference towards Taiwan). To him, the AUKUS deal is simply another example of Australia tying itself unnecessarily to the United States and “following” Washington into war. Keating places responsibility for any potential war over Taiwan with the U.S (and the Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hartcher), not with China, despite Beijing’s clear assertion that it is willing to take the island by force, and its own massive military build up with this intent.
Keating’s thinking is a common strain of progressive thought which Orwell highlights in his essay. This thinking is driven by a simplistic understanding of power and an instinctive anti-hegemonic sentiment – the U.S is the global hegemon and therefore it is the world’s most suspicious actor. Those who hold power are always worse than those who don’t.
The U.S has clearly used its power in a number of stupid and terrible ways, this is undeniable. But it is worth considering what the world might be like without U.S hegemony. Would an Asia dominated by Imperial Japan and a Europe dominated by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union be better? The alternative to U.S hegemony is not some utopia of peace and justice, it is most likely one of worse hegemons. This is also the current case with China. Progressive thought tends to be fixated on perfect ideals and solutions, when the reality of the world is that of a complex mess where we are often trying to negotiate the least worst option.
Striving for better, more humane, options means having a clear understanding of how much worse the current world could be. Most of us have lived through an era of peace and prosperity that the world has never known before. Maybe, like Keating, we have lost the ability to comprehend a world outside of these conditions?
The Rest Is Iraq
Considering one of the more glaringly stupid and terrible mistakes of the U.S, this week has been the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. To mark this occasion The Rest Is Politics podcast – hosted by Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart – posted two extraordinarily honest and frank conversations about the motivations for launching the attack and the consequences of it. The first episode is here, and second here.
For those who are unaware, Campbell was Tony Blair’s director of communications, and former Conservative Party MP, Stewart, at the time was a young official in the United Kingdom’s foreign office who, at age of 30, had become the acting governor of the Iraqi provinces of Maysan and Dhi Qar following the invasion. Both their lives were – and still are – intimately tied to the invasion.
I was living in London at the time, so perspectives from the UK were my dominant ones. Although I was young and didn’t have a nuanced understanding of the issues, the push towards an invasion didn’t feel right. I marched with 1 million others through the streets of London in a demonstration of public opposition that seemed like it should have been impactful, but unfortunately wasn’t.
Since then discussion about the invasion of Iraq has become glib and belligerent, yet these two episodes are an actual serious conversation about history and ideas, told through first-hand accounts of people who played significant roles. Stewart is insistent that the invasion was a grand folly and Campbell – given his closeness to Blair – is somewhat defensive. But he is willing to actually re-interrogate the case in an open manner with humility.
It is compelling listening. Not only as an investigation of a major historical event, but as a form of political discussion and the art of debate that is incredibly rare to non-existent these days.
Why Public Broadcasters Should Seek Objectivity, Not Impartiality
The past couple of weeks the BBC has been trying to come to terms with the idea of impartiality. The broadcaster stood down Gary Lineker from Match of the Day after he tweeted a frank assessment of the UK government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, and the dehumanising language being used by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. Many of his co-broadcasters stood aside from their roles in support.
This is a problem all media outlets face, but public broadcasters like the BBC and the ABC here in Australia face an extra layer of complexity due to being publicly funded. However, the problem is not the tweeting of their staff, the problem is the concept of “impartiality” itself. The term drives public broadcasters to always frame their work through the actions (and feelings) of political parties.
The idea of “balance” is not an equal number of partisan warriors, as media outlets have come to believe. Instead, objectivity is a far better concept they should be striving towards, as it is the attempt to follow the evidence. It is not the job of the media to be impartial if a political party is lying, being extreme, or inhumane.
This objectivity should be tied to a set of journalistic ethics, and given that it is the only real framework a free press can exist under, liberal-democratic principles. If a political party chooses to move itself outside of these principles – as many traditionally conservative parties are currently doing – it is not the responsibility of the media to coddle them or provide them with uncritical airtime.
Governments are always going to make decisions that are difficult, and often harmful to some. But they should always face scrutiny from a position of harm minimisation. Obvious cruelty is not a partisan interpretation. Harm may, at times, be unavoidable, but that doesn’t mean it is above examination. A government’s role is to explain and justify its actions. The media’s job is to methodically and rigorously seek and interrogate these justifications.
This Week’s Reading and Listening
Innovative Solutions Needed For Indian Community Tensions in Australia
Grant Wyeth - The Diplomat
“Both the Victorian and federal governments should recognise that tensions within the Indian Australian community are quickly becoming untenable themselves, with their potential to spiral out into a number of facets of Australian domestic and international relations. Therefore serious thought and investment needs to be dedicated to the issue. This won’t be easy, as communal tensions are highly emotive and actively cultivated transnationally, with adherents existing within partisan media ecosystems that ferment chauvinistic sentiments. These emotions cannot simply be turned off like a tap. Therefore innovative and long-term solutions are required.
Until now, Australia’s success as a multicultural country has been due to its hands-off approach. The country has trusted people will understand the implicit compact to leave conflict behind, and the overwhelming majority of people – including most Indian Australians – embraced this, knowing that future rewards are greater than past or present grievances.
Given the modern global communication environment and the emotional in-group investments this animates, this hands-off approach may need to be reconsidered. However, Australia’s response doesn’t have to be stern and restrictive. Instead it is an opportunity to think creatively, to see the whole chessboard of statecraft, and try to redirect negative emotions into constructive and compelling outcomes for the country as a whole.”
Grant Wyeth - International Blue
In contrast to ideology, philosophy is the search for consistency and ethical truths. It is, or should be, guided by principle and empathy – a way of understanding the world outside of group competition. Philosophy can therefore be seen as the antidote to whataboutery, a method to focus the mind on ideas and outcomes, rather than teams. To build an understanding of the good that acknowledges the complex web of humanity, with its array of cultures, ideas and interests, and seek to find workable – and chiefly humane – forms of interaction and organisation.
Yet it should be acknowledged that politics, like human existence itself, is unavoidably emotional. Overcoming this emotion is not easy, but it may also not be wholly desirable. In Francis Fukuyama’s much misunderstood book “The End of History and the Last Man”, the concept of the “last man” was that of an entirely rational and cosmopolitan human who inhabited the end of history – the conclusion of ideological competition. This person had no culture of their own, no links to practise or place, and as a result humanity may have been struggle-free, but it was dull, monotonous and devoid of feeling. The last man was human in name only.
Grant Wyeth – International Blue
Governments tend to see infrastructure as a response to problems once they become untenable. The current thinking in the Victorian government seems to be that the Metro 2 project will be necessary once the population and economic activity within Fishermans Bend warrants it. Yet without good public transport connections Fishermans Bend simply won’t be attractive to people, businesses, educational and cultural institutions. The public transport creates the attraction, not the other way around.
Fishermans Bend presents Melbourne with an extraordinary opportunity to enhance its reputation as a city and expand its economic, cultural and social strength. But this opportunity relies on the government understanding and fully committing to the actual drivers of activity, vibrancy and placemaking. Great cities aren’t made by cars, it is their public transport networks that are their true circulatory systems, which most importantly includes their heart.
Taking Australian Statecraft From Good To Great
Hugh Piper & Susannah Patton - The Interpreter
Finally, Australia requires a “bureaucratic engine room”. Presently, there is no bureaucratic body with the clear authority to develop integrated strategies and coordinate the tools of statecraft across government (and more broadly with non-government actors). Neither the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) nor the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) have a clear and consistent mandate or the resources to perform this role.
An organising bureaucratic entity with a clear mandate to run international policy could conduct long-term planning and coordinate action. This would mean having full visibility over the international policy and engagement of all government agencies. It could also function as a standing body to develop and guide implementation of whole-of-government strategies without having to establish a special task force.
DFAT is probably best positioned for this, extending its current role. This would mean clearly mandating DFAT to lead and coordinate international policy across government, while also providing it the resources to run integrated policy development when needed. An alternative model would be to boost the central coordination function of PM&C. This would be preferable for a wider remit encompassing both international engagement and national security.
Ideology Is Back, And It’s Critical For Understanding AUKUS v China
Lydia Khalil - The Age
“China’s “chief ideologue” and most important political theorist is Wang Huning. A high-ranking member of the Chinese Communist Party’s Politburo Standing Committee, Wang was instrumental in developing modern China’s ideological underpinnings, arguing the case for its neo-authoritarianism and against democracy. In the early 1990s, he wrote a book, America Against America. Its dissection of America’s crisis of democracy proved to be highly influential – and now it’s back in heavy circulation.
Wang argues the US, and democracies in general, will ultimately be felled by inequalities, polarisation and liberty running amok. Wang’s argument has captured China’s leadership, and Xi Jinping in particular. China’s perception of democracy’s weakness influences its confidence and its assessment of its prospects of successfully pursuing its strategic interests.”
Australia’s Population 'Reality Check' (audio)
The National Security Podcast - ANU National Security College
“Australia’s most recent Population Statement details the early impacts of the COVID‑19 pandemic and projects where the nation’s population is heading over the next decade.
How can this information be used to inform policy and decision-making in pursuit of a secure Australian future?
In this episode of the National Security Podcast, Dr Liz Allen, demographer and Senior Lecturer at the ANU Center for Social Research and Methods, joins Dr Will Stoltz to discuss the state of Australia's population and what needs to be done to prepare for an increasingly complex strategic environment.”
Banyan - The Economist
“China’s shameless methods for holding sway among small Pacific island states are no secret. Yet the level of detail Mr Panuelo provides is remarkable—and surely deeply embarrassing for China. “We are bribed to be complicit, and bribed to be silent,” he writes. He describes Chinese envelopes of cash and offers of trips by private plane to curry favour among politicians and administrators who “advance their personal interest in lieu of the national interest”. In another instance, the Chinese ambassador to Micronesia pushed the covid-19 vaccines at the heart of China’s recent global propaganda campaigns so incessantly that the president had to change his mobile-phone number.
When gifts do not work, warnings are issued. Mr Panuelo claims to have received “direct threats against my personal safety” from Chinese officials. While attending a Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Fiji, he says he was followed by two men from the Chinese embassy.”
The Emotional State Of Nations
Nathan Gardels - Noema
“Humiliation and resentment over a lack of recognition and respect are among the most powerful drivers of history that ends badly. Russia may be the most indicative case in point at the moment. To consider Putin a maniacal outlier in his worldview misses how broadly his sentiments are shared by a range of otherwise sympathetic personalities in Russia over the post-Cold War period.
It is the shared history of humiliation and scorn from the West that binds together the likes of India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and others from the Global South who won’t join Western sanctions against Russia despite the atrocious crimes against humanity being committed in Ukraine.
Emotions shape reasons of state no less than they do the lives of persons. The heretofore winners of modern history ignore this profound character of human nature at their peril.”
Why Has the West Given Up on Aid?
Dalibor Roháč - American Purpose
“The imperative of promoting prosperity in poor countries—arguably one of the most important tasks facing humankind—has been displaced in elite conversations by other subjects. For one, the West has become far more introverted and pre-occupied with the health of its own political systems. Since at least the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump in 2016, fear of democratic decline at home has overshadowed interest in events beyond one’s own borders—with the possible exception of Russia’s war against Ukraine.
The several billion people who have been lifted from lives in extreme poverty since the 1990s are by no means affluent—a daily income of $5 or $8 still leaves societies vulnerable, not to speak of the “middle-income trap” that awaits them further up the economic ladder. Yet the point is not just to alleviate poverty and to kick-start economic growth in poor countries around the world for their own sake, though both are laudable aims and aligned with U.S. foreign goals. The point is also to use development tools, in addition to the promotion of good governance and economic integrations, as instruments of our soft American power to build coalitions that can help us confront our autocratic adversaries—together.”
In Our Time - BBC
“Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss how, between the 16th and 18th centuries, Europe was dominated by an economic way of thinking called mercantilism. The key idea was that exports should be as high as possible and imports minimised. For more than 300 years, almost every ruler and political thinker was a mercantilist. Eventually, economists including Adam Smith, in his ground-breaking work of 1776 The Wealth of Nations, declared that mercantilism was a flawed concept and it became discredited. However, a mercantilist economic approach can still be found in modern times and today’s politicians sometimes still use rhetoric related to mercantilism.”
Think Women Have Never Had It So Good? You Should Take A Look At Medieval Days
Martha Gill - The Guardian
“Or take hunter-gatherer societies, the source of endless cod-evolutionary theories about female inferiority. The discovery of female skeletons with hunting paraphernalia has disproved the idea that men only hunted and women only gathered – and more recently anthropologists have challenged the idea that men had higher status too: women, studies contend, had equal sway over group decisions.
This general bias has had two unfortunate consequences. One is to impress upon us the idea that inequality is “natural”. The other is to give us a certain complacency about our own age: that feminist progress is an inevitable consequence of passing time. “She was ahead of her time,” we say, when a woman seems unusually empowered. Not necessarily.”
Why Do Some U.S. Women Hate Feminism?
Alice Evans – Substack
“The conservative women I interviewed were typically articulate, assertive and great admirers of Katie Britt (the new Republican senator). Though amply qualified, they are not necessarily recognised as knowledgeable authorities. A senior bureaucrat has persevered to disprove her presumed incompetence. Meanwhile, a barmaid got frustrated when men didn’t listen to her knowledge of liquor. One cashier was promoted to manager, but then disrespected by co-workers. Yet despite these sexist obstacles, they still described feminists as wanting to ‘cut men down’.
Why do so many American women perceive feminists as ‘toxic’?
I suggest that feminists and conservatives have antithetical views on almost everything. Socially segregated, cross-over is infrequent. This begets misperceptions and animosity. When right-wing media lambasts feminists, loyal viewers nod along. As a result, feminist analyses of sexual harassment fail to gain traction.”
The Men – And Boys – Are Not Alright (audio)
The Ezra Klein Show – New York Times
“In 1972, when Congress passed Title IX to tackle gender equity in education, men were 13 percentage points more likely to hold bachelor’s degrees than women; today women are 15 points more likely to do so than men. The median real hourly wage for working men is lower today than it was in the 1970s. And men account for almost three out of four “deaths of despair,” from overdose or suicide.
These are just a sample of the array of dizzying statistics that suffuse Richard Reeves’s book “Of Boys and Men.” We’re used to thinking about gender inequality as a story of insufficient progress for women and girls. There’s a good reason for that: Men have dominated human societies for centuries, and myriad inequalities — from the gender pay gap to the dearth of female politicians and chief executives — persist to this day.
But Reeves’s core argument is that there’s no way to fully understand inequality in America today without understanding the ways that men and boys — particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds — are falling behind.”
What If Climate Change Meant Not Doom — But Abundance?
Rebecca Solnit - The Washington Post
“Much of the reluctance to do what climate change requires comes from the assumption that it means trading abundance for austerity, and trading all our stuff and conveniences for less stuff, less convenience. But what if it meant giving up things we’re well rid of, from deadly emissions to nagging feelings of doom and complicity in destruction? What if the austerity is how we live now — and the abundance could be what is to come?
To accomplish that, we need a large-scale change in perspective. To reframe climate change as an opportunity — a chance to rethink who we are and what we desire.
What if we imagined “wealth” consisting not of the money we stuff into banks or the fossil-fuel-derived goods we pile up, but of joy, beauty, friendship, community, closeness to flourishing nature, to good food produced without abuse of labor? What if we were to think of wealth as security in our environments and societies, and as confidence in a viable future?”