A Second Enlightenment?

Paul Keating reflects on the world outlook

"George Herbert Bush talked about a New World Order then lost to Bill Clinton. And what happened then? Well, nothing happened then! The Americans cried victory and walked off the field. The greatest challenge we face, whether for managing incidents or easing the new economic tectonic plates into place, will be to construct a truly representative structure of world governance which reflects global realities but which is also equitable and fair." http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/202.html

I've always had a 'love/hate' relationship with Paul Keating (who, incidentally and obviously, has never heard of me - unless he personally read any of my emails when he was in office, which is doubtful in the extreme). One thing, on the 'hate' side of the ledger, was the 'legalisation' of industrial action by unions. To give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he thought legitimising industrial action was a positive thing, although he's so smart it's hard - if not impossible - to believe he didn't see the move as a 'control' on previously uncontrolled industrial action; after all, I did and assume many others did as well.

On the 'love' side of the ledger, he has always appeared to be a person with a genuine concern for the underdog, with a desire to promote equity and fairness. For example, his attitude to our First People has always demonstrated a desire to acknowledge past atrocities, to encourage us all to recognise our responsibility in changing their experience (see the link to his 1999 Redfern speech in Links at the bottom of this page). Another example is his introduction of the most advanced superannuation system since super began. "In 1992 the Federal Labor Government Introduced the Superannuation Guarantee (SG), following a refusal by the AIRC to increase the level of contributions under awards." http://www.actu.asn.au/super/about/super_history.html

Those tidbits are just to show why I am always interested in hearing what Paul Keating has to say, even if I don't always agree with him. I actually believe that it was a dark day for this country, Rudd's election notwithstanding, when he lost the 1996 election because he had not had the full opportunity to express and implement his own vision which would have come from the mind of an innovative and principled thinker - something of which we've had too little experience for most of our short history.

His speech to the Melbourne Writers' Festival is worth a read, in my opinion. It appears on the Evatt Foundation website, and I've linked to it there (earlier in this article) so you can have a look at other interesting items as well.

Don't ya just love 'em?

"AS YOU might expect from a nation that refers to the winners of its domestic sporting competitions as "world champions", American athletes generally possess the global vision of an earthworm with cataracts." The Age

I don't think I need to comment further on this one :).

The question of complicity with torture

"Few Australians will have heard about an extraordinary meeting involving some of the nation's most powerful government figures held at the Attorney-General Departmentin Canberra on October 23, 2001. Perhaps more should know that it concerned the possible torture of this Australian citizen." quote from Age article: Turning a blind eye to torture.

The Rudd Government has an opportunity to make it very clear that this Government opposes the torture of its citizens and that it will ensure consequences for those complicit in the USA's abominable behaviour. Again, from the article: "Now the Rudd Government has the opportunity to set the record straight, to reveal what really happened at that 2001 spring meeting in Canberra. This will not be the last time Australia faces critical security issues. It's time to act to ensure that torture is never again part of the response."

We need to make it clear to our Government that we expect it to act in the interests of human rights for all people and that we will not accept 'wishy washy' opposition that implies acceptance. Our Government acts in our name, so, unless we tell our Government NOT to comply, we are responsible. Our record is not so good (e.g., the Indonesian invasion of East Timor). Short-term solutions that include compliance with human rights abuses need to have consequences. To our shame, we knew our Government was implicated in the treatment of 'prisoners' in US custody and did not send the message at the ballot box that it was unacceptable - quite the contrary.

We now need to hold those Government officials who were responsible - and ourselves - to account. This is essential if we are to clear a path to better behaviour in the future. It can't be excused, it shouldn't be covered up; human rights abuses need to be exposed to the light of day. It is up to the citizens of all countries to instruct their Governments and, while many Governments torture and kill their own people for speaking out, we are in the very fortunate position of having power to expect ours to listen - if enough of us speak out and speak loudly enough to be heard.

You can't protect your way of life by destroying the principles on which it depends. Tell the Government that we're not complicit with torture and we expect to have full disclosure, as well as compensation for victims - whether we 'like' those victims or not.