Interdisiplinary Perspectives International

Poverty gets a shake-up

Quick post – you need to read this article, the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative has developed a new method of measuring poverty – Multidimensional Poverty.

Big times.

Oh Julia…

A very quick post on something I am surprised has yet to be addressed on this site. Julia Gillard. My own personal issues with gingers aside, I am sadly unsurprised at the reaction of the Australian and international media. The Australia media seems split, she is a backstabbing ***** or our red headed saviour. Once again we see the demonisation or agelification of a woman, or is this because shes a politician? The international media, even trashy sources such as Perez Hilton, are rejoicing at the promotion of a woman to PM. Firstly, Julia was not elected democratically by Australia. If she had gone through the trials of the election process as the primary candidate I would accept her with open arms but I feel as if Australian women have been cheated.

A group of politicians true to their stereotyped nature decided that their boss was not effective and instilled a subsitute that was thought to receive higher approval ratings… a woman. Strategic? I believe so. When the oppositions candidate has been compared to a lizard and many women have been reluctant to support him due to his past/present views on contraception, abortion and marriage, installing a woman whom is somewhat ‘out side the box’ of the political norm is likely to attract female voters.

The obvious gender inequality in all sectors, including politics – thanks Belinda Neal – has left us waiting for a positive role model and now we have one… by default. With the media celebrating the triumph for feminism I remain reluctant to do so. Women in a position of power are often used to reflect on a countries level of social development and equality. It is believed that any society that supports strong women must have reached a certain level of gender equality. Really? Megawati was essentially a puppet, Rwanda claimed that women were leading the countries recovery in 2008 with 56% of parliament being female and India is attempting to install a bill to secure 33% of seats in parliament for women, something that neighbouring Pakistan has in place.

While I can appreciate the difficulties and inequalities faced by women in these countries on all levels, let alone politics, there is something in this concept that does not sit well with me. I consider myself neo-feminist, I take pride in female accomplishments and support equal rights for women but if we really want to improve the situation of women worldwide, giving away seats in parliament is not the way to do it. Yes, securing seats for women may be the first step but it also slows the process of human development by overlooking  more effective, experienced or appropriate candidates purely on the basis of gender. Yes, women in Pakistan and India suffer terrible injustices and need to be empowered, but Pakistan and India also need the best political minds possible if they want to develop as a nation.

While I hope that Julia’s appointment makes the world look favourably on Australia, I want to be proud of my Prime Minister, I want her to be the best candidate and democratically elected not fall into it because she was the number two dog.

Quickly – Mincemeat!

Whoops, only just found this, only hours after posting all those links…

The following article from the New Yorker detailing the positives/negatives of intelligence, using the famous ‘Operation Mincemeat’ from WW2. Recommended reading.

“As Harold Wilensky wrote in his classic work “Organizational Intelligence” (1967), “The more secrecy, the smaller the intelligent audience, the less systematic the distribution and indexing of research, the greater the anonymity of authorship, and the more intolerant the attitude toward deviant views.” Wilensky had the Bay of Pigs debacle in mind when he wrote that. But it could just as easily have applied to any number of instances since, including the private channels of “intelligence” used by members of the Bush Administration to convince themselves that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”

Links for a Tuesday

Hi all,

Grog’s Gamut, a personal favourite of mine, has put up a blistering post about the Federal Government. Clearly a Labor supporter, but worth checking out even if you disagree.

It looks as though the article I posted a week ago from Bob Ellis might well be right in a Labor-LibDems Coalition with Milibrand as PM.

Thank you, Lowy Interpreter, for pointing me to this great talk from TED about improving development efficacy through scientific testing. And if you have a spare couple of hours, I highly recommend getting lost in the TED videos at www.ted.com

www.informationisbeautiful.net is a great blog of info-graphics, such as this one: Who really spend the most on their military… I also love this one on online musical wages.

The state of it…

 I am a strong supporter of abolising the federal system in Australia. That’s not to say that I am a disbeliever of federal systems altogether but merely, that in a country of 22 million people there is no need for three levels of government, over 800 elected members of parliament and the constant bureaucratic hurdles that come from competing state and federal goals. The recent health care reform bill is a prime example of this conflict and really just demonstrates to me why the federal system is outdated. After days and days of negotiations with state leaders, each of whom was merely trying to secure more money for their individual state without considering the overall benefits for the country, the government reached a deal with all but one Australian state (WA) who, in its tradition as a non-cooperator has held fast on refusing to give up any of its GST revenue to federal control. There are many arguments in favour of such a system. For one, it means that there is an independent level of government which is rallying for the citizens of its state. Secondly, it does suggest some deeper level of understanding between elected politicians and their electoral base by ‘localising’ politics. Thirdly (and I believe this remains the strongest argument), the federal system is a product of history and the original colonial administration of Australia. It is for this final reason that I see no prospect of Australia ever abandoning its federal system although there is no doubt that we will see less and less power vested in our state governments.

So what’s wrong with the federal system? Firstly, it is simply unnecessary for Australia and Australians to be electing and funding politicians at three levels of government (local, state and federal). All this three-tiered system does is create confusion, bureaucratic hurdles and the added cost of paying the politicians and their advisors and administration staff at all levels. Secondly, in a very small country in terms of population, there is no need to be so over-governed. It is often pointed out that geographically, Australia is a very large country. But with advances in technology, geographical distance is no longer a hindrance to good governance and it is possible for a government to function effectively from afar. Thirdly, there are huge practical problems with maintaining different laws and governing practices in each state. Some examples that spring to mind are university systems, roads, drivers licences, train travel, concession cards, drug possession laws and abortion laws. State control over these areas leads to confusion and misunderstanding at an individual level as to what applies in each state and huge practical hurdles when it comes to travelling interstate. The European Union has managed to standardise laws in a number of these areas (eg roads and university credits) and so there is no reason why Australia cannot do the same. The only remaining hurdle is stubbornness on the part of the states who refuse to offer any concessions which they feel might alter their sense of ‘state identity’.

Lately we have seen more and more power vested in the federal government and a general move away from state power. However, it is unfeasible to suggest that states might ever actually disappear. Perhaps what is more likely is a whittling down of state power so that we see small state governments with limited control over a few areas. Another option would be to merge our three-tiered system into a two-tiered system which the local and state powers combining into regional governing bodies. This could mean for example having governments which oversee larger areas and have the powers which are currently invested in local councils (eg planning permission). While it is unlikely that we will see such dramatic changes in the way we are governed, there is no doubt that the power balance in Australia is changing and I propose that we embrace this change and accept that over-governance is a hindrance and not a help in improving our position as citizens.

- Mel

Where exactly does Taiwan belong?

I recently went on a trip to Taiwan, a place which is famous for ‘made in Taiwan’ labels, its amazing food and an aura of uncertainty as to what place exactly Taiwan occupies in the world of international relations. Even before I set off on my China Airlines flight over to the capital, Taipei, I still could not have described to you exactly what Taiwan is. Is it a state? Or an autonomous region? Or does it just occupy its own position altogether?

In fact, in strictly legal terms, Taiwan is not a state. It does not have the capacity to enter into treaties with other states and it does not hold its own seat at the UN (although until 1971, it sat in the seat of China). On the other hand, there are many facts which blur this distinction and suggest that Taiwan is in fact an independent entity.

The official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China (ROC). The ROC government was initially the governing body for the whole of the Chinese mainland. After 1949, when Mao declared the People’s Republic of China, the ROC only retained its control of Taiwan. However, the ROC refused to recognise the new government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and consequently, it still sees itself as the sole legitimate governing body of China. The vast majority of states have since 1949 transferred their recognition from the ROC to the PRC as the legitimate government of China. Nonetheless, there are still 23 states who recognise the ROC and most other states retain some sort of political connection. For example, the ROC issues its own passports to citizens and many habitants of mainland China are also eligible to apply for a ROC passport, even if they are not able to live on Taiwanese territory. Despite the fact that Taiwan does not share official diplomatic relations with the majority of states, the ROC passport is still a widely accepted document.

So what does this tell us? Taiwan is self-governing, has its own laws and own government (which was once the recognised government of China), issues its own passports and sees itself as a wholly independent entity. Yet, according to the strict constraints of international law, Taiwan is not a state. Why? Some international lawyers suggest that Taiwan is an example of an entity which has declined by be its own state by refusing to recognise the PRC and maintaining that it is the sole government of China. This works in Taiwan’s favour in some instances as it is not bound by the same treaty obligations which bind other states. For example, with regards to deep sea fishing, Taiwan is one of six countries which are involved in 90% of all deep sea fishing. But without state status, Taiwan is not a part of the essential treaties governing fishing quotas. In response, many states have entered into bilateral relations with Taiwan or allowed it to be involved in state negotiations.

Another suggestion which has been propagated by writers in the US in the past few years, is that Taiwan can be seen as a US territory. Such people argue that since 1952, Taiwan has been under the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government. As evidence, they rely on the 1952 San Fransisco Peace Treaty which recognises the US as the principle occupying power of Taiwan. Whether this theory, which has been dubbed the “occupation theory” has any merit whatsoever is highly questionable. However, there is no doubt that Taiwan is an example of an area of international law which has yet to be clarified. It is in the interests of the ROC, the PRC and the rest of the international community that the position of Taiwan becomes clear so as to allow its participation in official international relations. Whether this will happen within the borders of pre-existing international law on the recognition of states is still a long way off.

-Mel