I believe in the free flow of ideas. Especially mine.
I know doqz was talking about the pros and cons of the actual policies in the US presidential election. And I think that's a fine thing, because heaven knows my vehement support for Labor in this last election hinged greatly on their new policies. (I gave them my preferences last time for the dubious benefit of not being the Coalition and not overtly wanting to rip our tertiary education system to pieces. But grudgingly, and because I knew that if they'd got in they would have known it was through Greens/Democrat preferences and thus been more attentive to that demographic. This year I loved Labor. I love Mark. Needless to say, my heart is broken.) But talking policies rather than personalities is more open to discussion and although it's a bit late, I'd like to discuss.
Let's start with free trade, to get warmed up.
I feel best informed and entitled to talk about the Bush administration's proposed Free Trade Agreement with Australia. I say the administration, because I'm damn sure he didn't write the seventeen hundred page document himself. He probably didn't even read it. I don't mean that as an insult, because I'm pretty sure John Howard didn't read it either, or Mark Latham. They're way too busy. That's why Labor got a Senate inquiry into the damn thing, so somebody else would have to read it and work out what it meant and then explain the tricky parts.
Firstly, it's not really 'free' trade. In fact, 'more restricted trade for you, more monopolies for us agreement' would probably be more accurate, but it doesn't sound as cool. Sure, the deal's a good one for the US. Of course it is. In Senator Kate Lundy's words: "The Howard Government's participation in bi-lateral trade talks with America was inevitably going to lead to an imbalanced outcome. This is because America is really big and Australia is really small." The US imposes its patent and copyright law on Australia, but without the fair use loophole. Meanwhile, tariffs on our primary exports to the US and the Farm Bill remain. Nice deal for the US, huh?
Would be if it had passed. The deadline's gone by. It may yet pass, and with the new Senators here it probably will, IF the US signs off on the amendment. In its original form it wasn't going to pass the government it was presented to, making it a really big gamble on the Bush administration's part (were they counting on nobody reading it or do they really think we're that dependent? answers on the back of a postcard to John Howard) and potentially a huge, stupid waste of time.
The inquiry brought out all sorts of interesting stuff, including the fact that the agreement directly attacks the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), which is what Labor's amendment is supposed to address. The PBS means that Pensioners and other people with low incomes get prescription medicines subsidised by the government (meaning the government puts up most of the money), and so pharmaceutical companies who want in on the Australian market negotiate with the government. And frankly, our government favours the lowest bid on health care. The changes proposed in the FTA would benefit American pharmaceutical companies, I admit, because by changing our patent law they wouldn't have to put up with any competition from other companies. But Australia is far too attached to the PBS to give it up without a fight.
From my perspective, the Bush administration's trade policies suck. They're certainly not very free. And for the American companies, well, they're great if you can force your trade partner to agree, but shithouse if you can't. The FTA proceedings have been both long and expensive, and the longer the Senate looks at it the more they find that they don't like. As a strategy for dealing with a supposedly valued military ally, it kinda sucks.
Now for the controversial stuff. Iraq.
Now, I can see the point of view that we're well into it now, so we have to stick with it rather than pull out and leave an enormous mess. I wouldn't say that Bush's group is who I'd want to be in charge of that. The number of mistakes and atrocities since the invasion doesn't speak in their favour, nor do current living conditions in Iraq or the attitude of the populace.
The Bush administration angered a large portion of the world by invading in the first place. The biggest anti-war demonstrations in history, all over the world. And the country that was the most pissed off was Iraq. But, most of all, it's been a failure. The quality of living for the Iraqi people has not improved, it has sharply declined. There is no education. There are no jobs. There is no health care. Electricity hasn't been restored. Since their 'liberation' educated and previously independent women in Baghdad can no longer leave the house without a male relative due to the rise in kidnapping. And there's the extra risk of having your house blown up while you're in it. Sure, under Saddam people disappeared and were tortured or killed. That's still going on at quite a busy rate, both by insurgents, criminal gangs and the US military. See, there is no apology big enough to cover Abu Ghraib. There is no possible way to repair that kind of damage to your reputation. I'd like to think that's why the only apology made over it has been aimed at the King of Jordan, but I'm more inclined to think that it's because Bush doesn't or can't distinguish between different groups of Arabs.
But the saddest and most condemning part is that the way the Bush administration handled Iraq has produced an enormous increase in Muslim fundamentalism in a previously secular and tolerant state. (Equal rights for women were written into the law and they had free tertiary education, don't even think about coming at me with that one.) The whole reason the US originally supported Saddam was as a bastion against Iran and fundamentalist rule. Now we have wall-to-wall violent Muslim fundamentalists and we know exactly who to thank for it. The Bush administration has produced more terrorists. And probably not just in Iraq, but Syria and other Middle Eastern countries.
The Bush administration should not control the continuing attempts to sort out Iraq. Not because they were wrong to start the war, which I personally believe they were, or because Bush himself is personally hated, but because they are so incredibly bad at it.
More detail than you can shake a stick at on the FTA can be found here, for an inside view of Iraqi politics and Baghdad living conditions I recommend Baghdad Burning - she has an open letter to Americans on the front page at the moment. Kate Lundy is a Labor Senator and the Shadow Minister for Manufacturing and Consumer Affairs.
Let's start with free trade, to get warmed up.
I feel best informed and entitled to talk about the Bush administration's proposed Free Trade Agreement with Australia. I say the administration, because I'm damn sure he didn't write the seventeen hundred page document himself. He probably didn't even read it. I don't mean that as an insult, because I'm pretty sure John Howard didn't read it either, or Mark Latham. They're way too busy. That's why Labor got a Senate inquiry into the damn thing, so somebody else would have to read it and work out what it meant and then explain the tricky parts.
Firstly, it's not really 'free' trade. In fact, 'more restricted trade for you, more monopolies for us agreement' would probably be more accurate, but it doesn't sound as cool. Sure, the deal's a good one for the US. Of course it is. In Senator Kate Lundy's words: "The Howard Government's participation in bi-lateral trade talks with America was inevitably going to lead to an imbalanced outcome. This is because America is really big and Australia is really small." The US imposes its patent and copyright law on Australia, but without the fair use loophole. Meanwhile, tariffs on our primary exports to the US and the Farm Bill remain. Nice deal for the US, huh?
Would be if it had passed. The deadline's gone by. It may yet pass, and with the new Senators here it probably will, IF the US signs off on the amendment. In its original form it wasn't going to pass the government it was presented to, making it a really big gamble on the Bush administration's part (were they counting on nobody reading it or do they really think we're that dependent? answers on the back of a postcard to John Howard) and potentially a huge, stupid waste of time.
The inquiry brought out all sorts of interesting stuff, including the fact that the agreement directly attacks the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), which is what Labor's amendment is supposed to address. The PBS means that Pensioners and other people with low incomes get prescription medicines subsidised by the government (meaning the government puts up most of the money), and so pharmaceutical companies who want in on the Australian market negotiate with the government. And frankly, our government favours the lowest bid on health care. The changes proposed in the FTA would benefit American pharmaceutical companies, I admit, because by changing our patent law they wouldn't have to put up with any competition from other companies. But Australia is far too attached to the PBS to give it up without a fight.
From my perspective, the Bush administration's trade policies suck. They're certainly not very free. And for the American companies, well, they're great if you can force your trade partner to agree, but shithouse if you can't. The FTA proceedings have been both long and expensive, and the longer the Senate looks at it the more they find that they don't like. As a strategy for dealing with a supposedly valued military ally, it kinda sucks.
Now for the controversial stuff. Iraq.
Now, I can see the point of view that we're well into it now, so we have to stick with it rather than pull out and leave an enormous mess. I wouldn't say that Bush's group is who I'd want to be in charge of that. The number of mistakes and atrocities since the invasion doesn't speak in their favour, nor do current living conditions in Iraq or the attitude of the populace.
The Bush administration angered a large portion of the world by invading in the first place. The biggest anti-war demonstrations in history, all over the world. And the country that was the most pissed off was Iraq. But, most of all, it's been a failure. The quality of living for the Iraqi people has not improved, it has sharply declined. There is no education. There are no jobs. There is no health care. Electricity hasn't been restored. Since their 'liberation' educated and previously independent women in Baghdad can no longer leave the house without a male relative due to the rise in kidnapping. And there's the extra risk of having your house blown up while you're in it. Sure, under Saddam people disappeared and were tortured or killed. That's still going on at quite a busy rate, both by insurgents, criminal gangs and the US military. See, there is no apology big enough to cover Abu Ghraib. There is no possible way to repair that kind of damage to your reputation. I'd like to think that's why the only apology made over it has been aimed at the King of Jordan, but I'm more inclined to think that it's because Bush doesn't or can't distinguish between different groups of Arabs.
But the saddest and most condemning part is that the way the Bush administration handled Iraq has produced an enormous increase in Muslim fundamentalism in a previously secular and tolerant state. (Equal rights for women were written into the law and they had free tertiary education, don't even think about coming at me with that one.) The whole reason the US originally supported Saddam was as a bastion against Iran and fundamentalist rule. Now we have wall-to-wall violent Muslim fundamentalists and we know exactly who to thank for it. The Bush administration has produced more terrorists. And probably not just in Iraq, but Syria and other Middle Eastern countries.
The Bush administration should not control the continuing attempts to sort out Iraq. Not because they were wrong to start the war, which I personally believe they were, or because Bush himself is personally hated, but because they are so incredibly bad at it.
More detail than you can shake a stick at on the FTA can be found here, for an inside view of Iraqi politics and Baghdad living conditions I recommend Baghdad Burning - she has an open letter to Americans on the front page at the moment. Kate Lundy is a Labor Senator and the Shadow Minister for Manufacturing and Consumer Affairs.