North Korea’s Kim set for a long rule

The official broadcasts of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are as stultifyingly boring as always: Congratulations sent to overseas leaders newly appointed or who have reached some milestone; gifts made to the supreme leader, Kim Jong-un, from the City of Moscow – and always a swipe at the Republic of Korea in the south - students in a ‘surprise demonstration’ having their posters removed by the ‘fascist police’.

The view from Pyongyang is that of a State which is a haven of tranquility and happiness in a sea of capitalist misery and despair which requires million-strong armed forces and a nuclear capability to ward off the arch-enemies, South Korea, Japan and the United States, who plot to wipe the North off the map.

And yet there are now clear signs that all is not well in the socialist paradise with the hurried execution of the man thought to be the young Kim’s guide and mentor, his uncle by marriage, Jang Song-thaek.

Add to that unconfirmed reports formerly influential figures close to Jang have either disappeared or are seeking refuge in China and you have all the evidence of a palace coup. Whether a failed plot again Kim that was discovered, or Kim just deciding to free himself from influences that did not appeal to him, remains unclear.

Earlier this year in trying to unravel the Pyongyang puzzle I suggested that Kim, who has lived and studied in the West and is a fan of American basketball, may be seeking to make North Korea more accommodating to the international community. I believe that view is wrong. Kim obviously prefers the the trappings of power to the opportunity of watching live exhibition matches between the Chicago Bulls and the Los Angeles Lakers.

I also wrote around that time that as Kim began to establish himself it would begin to dawn on the old guard that this youthful leader would probably be around until the middle of the century, something which might exercise their minds as to the whether this was in their interests – that theory sits far more comfortably with the recent events.

It is believed that Kim escaped an assassination attempt earlier this year which might have been the source of the current retribution. The clampdown was swift and unusual even by North Korean standards. Executions are usually reserved for common ‘criminals and agitators’.

However, as the President of the Pacific Forum Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Ralph A. Cossa, points out, the reprisals will probably have the desired effect.   “Remember the old maxim about ‘killing the chicken to scare the monkeys?’” Cossa writes.

“Kim went straight for the monkey. Can you imagine how scared the chickens must now be?”

 

 

BJP turns screws in State polls

Significant gains by the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in a series of Indian State elections at the weekend has dealt a severe blow to the Congress-led Government of Manmohan Singh with a national poll due within the next six months.

The BJP’s most spectacular success was in Rajasthan when it picked up an astonishing 84 seats, mostly from the Congress Party, to hold a two-thirds majority in the State. Congress also collapsed in its former stronghold of Delhi, but here the spoils were shared between the BJP and a newcomer, the Aam Aadmi Party. The BJP has the most number of seats but no overall majority and a fresh election is likely in the near future.

Add to this comfortable wins in Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh, where it was already the ruling party and the BJP looks in excellent shape to return to power nationally after 10 years of Congress rule in New Delhi.

What are the reasons behind the resurgence of a party its opponents have always sought to portray as a narrow, secular organisation representative only of the militant wing of Hinduism?  The new Chief Minister in Rajasthan, Vasundhra Raje was in no doubt, being quick to thank the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, for his aggressive campaigning in the State.

Since being named as the man to lead the BJP in the national poll, Modi has hit the campaign trail, addressing huge crowds in all parts of the country. A slick campaigner, he has embraced social media, something that has boosted his popularity among the young.

Modi, who in a dozen years as Chief Minister of Gujarat has transformed the State into an economic powerhouse, is also the darling of big business, and the Indian stock market surged on news of the BJP’s successes.

Where does this leave Congress, the ruling party for three quarters of India’s 66 years since independence? For most of that time it has been dominated by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which has provided three Prime Ministers, and Congress insiders would like the latest member of the family, Rahul Gandhi, to be the fourth.

Unfortunately Gandhi is ambivalent about taking on the job and has proved to be a less-than-effective campaigner. BJP officials gleefully point out that their party won all the seven Rajasthan seats where Gandhi spoke on behalf of the Congress candidate.

Some Congress sources are now suggesting that Rahul’s mother, Sonia, for long a power behind the scenes and the widow of the last Gandhi Prime Minister, Rajiv, would make a better opponent for Modi. Younger members of the party are even going so far as to say it should ditch the Gandhi family altogether.

As one pointed out “there are many quality people in the party whose career paths are blocked because the ultimate seat is always being kept warm for a Gandhi. This really isn’t a healthy position to be in.”   

 

 

 

Mandela’s example must live on

My best memory of Nelson Mandela goes back almost a quarter of a century to that February day in 1990 when he emerged from the house where he had spent the final few days of his captivity to meet the world’s media.

He walked alone down a long path to the front gate to end the fevered speculation that had surrounded the news of his impending release. What would he say? Who would he blame for the centuries of oppression of South Africa’s black people and for his own 27 years of often brutal captivity?

At that moment he held the future of his nation in his hands.

And then he began to speak, and there was a surreal, almost dream-like quality of the speech he gave. There was no bitterness; no rancour, no demands for reprisals, just a calm, reasoned explanation of the arrangements for a transfer of power to the country’s majority.

It was the kind of address that might be given by the leader of a party that had just won an election in a democracy, but without the triumphalism even that would have involved. He reached out at once to all South African citizens in the name of freedom, in the name of democracy, but above all in the name of peace.

Today his work is over, but there is still much to do. South Africa’s crime rate is unacceptably high, corruption is rife; many black people feel they are still not enjoying the fruits of freedom; many of the richer whites feel isolated in gated and guarded communities.

The task to continue to build South Africa is now in the hands of a new generation of leaders led by President Jacob Zuma, a controversial enough figure for many of his country-people, yet in his address to the nation, and to the world, in which he gave the news of Mandela’s passing, there was enough to suggest that he recognises the path pointed out by the first president is the one to follow.

South Africa’s position as a functioning democracy with a developed economy makes it the natural leader of the African continent and a model for others. Its role in this century will be crucial. It should be the hope of all freedom-loving people that Mandela’s example will live on long after the man himself becomes part of history.     

 

 

 

Israel must not dictate Iran peace terms

The preliminary agreement (and preliminary should be stressed) between Iran and the six major countries plus the European Union over Iran’s nuclear program should be welcomed.

It represents the first major breakthrough in relations with the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution and is a step towards bringing it back as a full member of the community of nations.

It is also confirmation of the more conciliatory approach of President Hasan Rowhani since he took over from the mercurial Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this year. Rowhani is a man the West can deal with in a way that was never possible with his predecessor.

There remains the obstacle of Israel, which immediately denounced the accord, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that it was a bad agreement, giving Iran a relaxation of the sanctions imposed on it, while still allowing it to pursue its nuclear program.

In essence, Netanyahu’s statement is correct. Any final resolution will leave Iran with a nuclear capability, but only for peaceful purposes. There are plenty of countries around the globe in similar positions – Japan and Germany to name just two.

This will not satisfy Netanyahu whose sees anything less than a total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program as containing a latent threat that Teheran could at some time in the future upgrade its capability to produce a bomb that would then threaten Israeli cities. His stand is totally unacceptable to Teheran and the negotiating powers know it.

Any final deal will have to include strong and continuing verification procedures to ensure that Iran is keeping to its part of the bargain – that its nuclear program is designed purely to improve the living standards of its people, by reducing domestic dependence on fossil fuels, leaving the country able to export more of its abundant reserves of oil.

It won’t satisfy the current Government in Jerusalem which will certainly be exerting pressure on the Israeli lobby in the United States Congress to scupper the deal. President Barak Obama, who has been seeking this agreement since the early months of his Administration, needs to stand firm.

Failure now would be a crippling blow to the Rowhani moderates in the Iranian Government and likely take the country back on to a more confrontational path. The West simply cannot afford another 30 years of an Israel-Iran stand-off complicating the issues in an already dangerously turbulent region.

Older people the solution – not the problem

The Productivity Commission has reported that the ageing population presents a severe threat to Australia’s economy – much more severe than previous estimates.

A remarkable achievement for these learned and no doubt highly-paid experts to have unearthed a fact that a junior demographer in the 1970s would have been able to reveal – if Governments in those days had bothered to listen.

I could go back further, mindful of a report in the 1960s which stated that if the current demographic trends continued there would come a point where there would be just two workers for every one retiree. However, that was a UK publication, so I simply mention it in passing.

These latest reports show that, for the most part, Australian Governments have been asleep at the wheel for the past 40 years when it comes to adequately preparing for the collapse of the country’s working-age population. Note my difference, the Productivity Commission, the Treasury and others, always put the problem on older Australians – too many of them – rather than productive working younger people – too few of them.

It is so much easier to blame the inevitability of people getting older, over which Governments have no control, than the shortage of tax-paying workers, which Governments could and should have fixed over the past three decades.

One way of tackling the problem should have been a far larger compulsory superannuation fund. The Hawke Government belatedly introduced one at nine per cent in the late 1980s, but there it has rested ever since, woefully inadequate. Successive Governments since have either actively blocked further increases or simply elected to do nothing. What we should have in 2013 is a scheme at around 15 per cent with an employee and well as employer component.

Secondly we should have looked to immigration far more than we have to reduce the age of our working population. Yes, I am well aware that this would be a short-term fix; nevertheless it ought to have been part of the equation. Despite the long drone from unions about immigrants taking jobs from Australians, evidence has shown this is clearly not the case and that new arrivals actually create jobs in the medium to long term by setting up small businesses and creating demand for services.

Finally there should have been a far more sustained effort to encourage young people to have more children. This goes beyond slogans like former Treasurer Peter Costello’s “one for the mother, one for the father and one for the country”, or even baby bonus rewards. What is needed is a comprehensive package of easier and affordable childcare available to all, more attractive maternal and parental leave and tougher laws to ensure that all employers understand that they cannot disadvantage their employees who take time off to have and care for their children.

The Productivity Commission’s answer, is, as usual, weighted against older people, with pensions and retirement ages lifted to 70. While higher age levels are needed, a draconian increase to 70 is unfair and possible unsustainable as there are a number of occupations where people would simply not be able to perform adequately at such an advanced age. This would mean (presumably) that they would have to receive some other form of taxpayer-funded assistance.

Many older people are prepared to do their bit. But to designate them as ‘the problem’ is unhelpful and just plain wrong. They are not the problem; they are a significant part of the solution.           

   

 

 

Disaster response will lose Beijing respect

Beijing’s initial miserly reaction to the Philippines typhoon disaster has lost it considerable prestige among its Asian neighbours, reinforcing perceptions that it is a ruthless and self-centred power whose rise is something to be feared rather than welcomed.

China’s original offer of $100,000 from the Government matched by the Chinese Red Cross was greeted with disbelief by the international community alongside donations from Australia ($30 million), the US ($20 million plus extensive civilian and military support), Japan ($10 million), United Kingdom ($70 million) and so on.

China later revised its contribution upwards to $1.75 million, mostly in tents and blankets, but still below totals from Taiwan ($4 million), Indonesia ($2 million), India (15 tonnes of medical supplies) and, perhaps most tellingly, the Swedish furniture chain of Ikea ($2.7 million).

So what is the reason for this poor treatment of the Philippines from the world’s second largest economy that has, in the past, been generous with similar appeals around the world? The answer appears to lie in the dispute between the two countries over a series of tiny islets in the South China Sea.

Beijing’s claim to various islands and atolls in the area has been well documented. It has also had disagreements with Vietnam and Indonesia, but it is the Philippines which has been most willing to challenge China’s claims over a formation known as the Scarborough shoal about 160 kilometres off the Philippines coast.

While Manila cannot hope to face down its giant neighbour militarily, it has taken its case to arbitration at the United Nations – and there it has a good chance of winning.

China bases its “indisputable rights” in the area to the fact that it has been fishing there since the fifth century AD, but as one maritime legal authority pointed out to me “the world has changed somewhat since the days of the Roman Empire and claims based on a practice 1600 years ago have to withstand 21^st century geopolitical realities”.

Leaving all that aside, it has been universally recognised in the past that when disaster strikes, political considerations are put aside in the face of the need to bring relief to human suffering. The fact that in this case China appears not to have accepted this is an indictment of those who wield power in Beijing.        

 

 

 

The decline of education

There is no doubt that higher education in Australia is in transition – some would call it crisis – as the pressure mounts for universities and their equivalents to be “relevant to modern society” and produce the workers who will “fuel the 21^st century economy”.

The words in inverted commas are not mine but ones I have seen in innumerable media releases churned out by Federal and State Governments – and because these Governments hold the purse strings, the places of higher learning have to take note.

I really wish however, that there was a little more “push back” from the leadership of the these institutions, pointing out that education should go beyond cramming for qualifications that will earn the right kind of job.

Sadly, many key figures in academia seem eager to acquiesce in this trend. The Vice Chancellor of the University of Canberra, Professor Stephen Parker, looks forward to the day when a great deal of his institution’s infrastructure will be redundant because students will come on to campus less often and for shorter periods.

In his vision students will do increasing amounts of their learning online, working with videos and text “reserving every minute of personal time of the teacher to smaller group encounters where students defend and discuss their work”. 

This sausage-machine mentality may produce the short-term results that politicians want, but there are so many flaws. One being the assumption that by 18, all young people know exactly what they want to do with their lives and therefore the courses they should follow.

I quote an academic from an American university who believes that in addition to providing its students with qualifications, higher education should be equipping them to answer four questions:

What is worth knowing? What is worth doing? What makes for a good human life? What are my responsibilities to other people? 

If the trends in Australian higher learning continue their answer to the first question would be: The information that gets me a job; to the second would be: My job; while the third and fourth questions would probably not be answered at all.

Higher education should be shaping a person to make a worthwhile contribution, not just to an employer, not just to the economy, but to the community, locally, nationally and globally. Above all it should teach that minds should be open to all influences, and to develop the maturity to judge them, to accept them, or to reject them.

It should teach them about compassion about justice and yes, about a fair go; it should point out to them that the society they have been raised in is just one among many on this earth. Part of that knowledge doesn’t come from the internet or even from the lecture hall, but from interaction on campus in all sorts of contacts, formal and informal. It comes from debate and discussion, not just about work, but about the world in general. What’s right; what’s wrong, what should be preserved; what needs to be changed.

If we don’t do that, we deserve to be judged as the generation that for its own, selfish, materialist ends sought to impoverish its young people by denying them the basic knowledge of what it means to be human.