Australian Settlement

It is important to think of the notion of an ‘Australian Settlement’ to understand the evolution of Australian political thought.  The British settled here and hence it was called the Australian settlement.  How can there possibly be any settlement.  There is class conflict evident.  There is the Aboriginal problem.  There is the racist population within Australia that voted for a white Australia in Australian history.  Australia is not socially cohesive and there are tensions at the workplace, leisure and home.  There are problems with drugs, crime, violence, health, social welfare and education that have not been raised.   There are several issues on the table that have been a problem of the capitalist economy.  As social welfare has been the first step away from capitalism, Australia is headed for a landslide win for the Democratic Communist Party.

‘White Australia’ was a racist protectionist policy.  It is important to understand that Australia was a racist nation prior to accepting immigrants from non-European countries.  The conflict between the convicts and the Indigenous population was extremely high requiring the segregation of the Aborigines combined with the problems of civil war within America, an old colony of the British Empire could have contributed to the fear of a multicultural Australia.  “It is only with the entry of Vietnamese refugees during the Fraser government period that Australia came to grips with the White Australia policys’ abolition”.  It was Fraser and Hawke who adopted the multiculturalism policy for the better of Australia.  This policy transformed Australia into an internationalized economy.  Multiculturism will be at the forefront of the democratic communists’ partys agenda as a home to refugees from war torn countries.  Increase the population, boost the economy, increase the GDP and play ball with the big boys.

Protection of local industry is a feature of many countries.  It is a highly contested issue among politicians and the like.  Open the borders to free trade and accept globalization or impose tariffs on imported goods to protect and develop local industry.  There is no right or wrong and in fact even the most liberal, open, free economies impose tariffs as they see fit.  It is basically like a game of chess, poker or monopoly.  The strategical thoughts, manoeuvres that have to be played in the mind must be tiresome.  The average Joe may not be able to comprehend the rationale behind restricting imports, however it is the use of domestic  products that bring income, bread on the table from simple employment.  Then there are those who advocate for globalization, the breakdown of all the political barriers to trade.  There is no right or wrong, however the crucial decision to be open to free trade has implications with foreign relations as well as having local social implications.  Free trade will be at the forefront of the communist agenda.  Local communist agenda does not have to affect global trade.

Industrial conflict is the conflict of the classes as professed by Marx.  The perfect competitive capitalist economy is one where labor is squeezed to perform at a maximum efficiency while accepting minimum wages hence increasing profit margins.  This problem is not one that is constrained to Australia by any means.  Every industrial economy faces the problem of what constitutes a fair days wage.  In the capitalist economy, the labor are treated like slaves receiving the great minimum needed to survive  That would fit nicely into the communist manifesto; equality in wages at a bare minimum, however the capitalists have the hoarders at the top of the food chain.  The bosses earn their million dollar salaries and come down off their high tree to negotiate; ‘wage arbitration’.  It doesn’t make sense.  Raise wages from below what is required for basic sustenance to just what is needed.  It sounds more like a welfare system.  The battle of the classes is bound to end in revolution, hopefully not violent.  Violent revolution is ripe about the world today as a result of poor governments failing to deliver to their people adequate services.  Poor management of a crumbling global economy, a problem the communist party could rectify.

State paternalism in the field of economy, I assume would be describing social welfare payments from the state.  This is an important feature of the perfect socialist state.  Looking after the unemployed, disabled and seniors of our society promotes a healthier economy, eliminating serious social problems that inferior governments have to endure.  The communist socialists are working a model of state paternalism.  The managing of property, industry, utilities and monies must be done from a central planning agency where the best minds available could solve the conflicts generated from a competitive economy.  Taxing the wealthy and feeding and housing the poor, free medical, dental and university education plus a welfare payment is in line with socialist ‘state paternalism’ thought.  Managing property and industry is just another small step.  After all, we are in the ‘Eastside’.  The communist party puts forward the proposal for the surrender of all private property, industry and monies to the state.  For the better of the nation.  End the misery.

Imperial Benevolence is a contradictory statement.  There is no benevolent act by seizing a country, or in the British crusade, only half the known world, by force!  By death!  By war!  The British slaves were sold, lynched and raped all over the world.  The winners write the history and we don’t know what really happened to the Australian Indigenous population 200 years ago.  Not one to dwell on death, the misery to endure ruling by foreigners.  The Africans weren’t happy.  The Indians weren’t happy.  The Americans weren’t happy.  Foreign rulers always seem to generate conflict for some reason; that baffles me at present.  To rule with the heart or the Iron Fist?  The communist party will be breaking all ties with the Commonwealth.  It’s actually Australias’ wealth, thank you very much.

There can be no Australian settlement until the issue of Terra Nullius is resolved.  This land does not belong to the British.  That is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  The Australian Aborigines exist and they are accepted as having been present on the land before the British arrived on Botany.  The only problem seems to be that there are no Aboriginal people able to run an industrial economy.  And of course the problem of the country to be shared by force.  Usually after the period of occupation is over, the war mongers would, I assume, retreat.  With over 20 million foreigners from war torn countries and no ties to their past motherlands, the country must be shared.  Now the problem of finding able Aborigines to handle a major player in global politics.  The communist party proposes to deliver on land rights and promises to develop the infrastructure for the local Indigenous population to thrive and enter the political arena in the near future.

“The commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”.  Absolutely brilliant constitution.  State secularism is a new concept to me, however it makes perfect sense.  Marx and Engels would not have condemned the church, however there must be moral code within the community, hence the strict adherence to the political law.  A socialist economy where the state controlled the property, industry and monies could also allow the free practice of religion.  Religion seems to impose cultural norms and societal values upon its patronage which seems to promote a healthier economy.  “Australian secularism embodies the major principles of enlightenment rationalism and liberalism”.  Absolutely brilliant!  

NATO in the middle east

In the game of global dominance, Iraq plays an important role.  It is in the centre of the old world.  An important trading route.  Its’ geographic position and its’ possession of oil still make it the centre of the world today.  As oil has played an important aspect of the modern industrial world, trade of oil is crucial to the economics of the whole world.  Trade of oil is so critical that realist thinkers advocate coercive trade if necessary.  After the US led 2003 Iraq invasion, there has been retaliation from the Iraqi population.  The people were not happy with the occupation and fought back with what they had.  As Saddam was toppled early, the retaliation was an unorganized, unfinanced war.  The US labelled these small attacks as terrorist.  They weren’t considered freedom fighters, but terrorists out to create chaos and restrain the spread of western ideals.  The Islam brotherhood has been present since the seventh century and are a strong force.  They even stretch into and contaminate western nations.  International relations theory describe the Islam nation as radicalists who are a threat to the spread of liberalism and according to realism, that threat must be contained.

As oil is at the centre of all economic activity of the world, Iraq is guaranteed a seat in the global game of economics and politics.  Iraq is a soft power by its’ legitimate control of huge oil reserves of oil.  It’s a game of globalism; global capitalism.  The world is so populated and the needs of each state is so great, it is not possible without global trade.  From technology design in the USA to manufacturing in China, the globe has reached International trade of epic proportions.  This kind of production is not possible without the oil of the Middle East.  Since the problems of the early twentieth century of Europe found its’ way into the Middle East, Iraq has been in turmoil and International organizations like the League of Nations, the UN, NATO, the Warsaw Pact and the G8, have been unable to resolve the energy crises.  The whole world needs it and Iraq has got it.  That can be seen as bargaining power of a soft power at the board room, however the rest of the world seem to be following the school of realism.  Iraq is seen as a rogue state without democratic rule with irrational leadership and need external military occupation.  Coercion to trade oil.  The invasion of the British during WWI was to control oil in a period of great energy needs to manufacture and deploy arsenal of epic proportions.  The war of 2003, led by the US was also a fight to control resources, with the cover of a search for WMDs’.  They still haven’t found any WMDs’ after eight years of battle and the topple of an existing government.  Global capitalism at its’ best.  Trade peacefully or trade with occupation.  Geographically, oil is predominantly found in the Middle East region.  How convenient.  An energy source in the middle of the world.  In a more stable economy, a truly globalized world could see the Middle East stretch pipelines to the east, west, north and south.  Properly managed and peacefully controlled, Iraq stand to be much more than a soft power.

Some call them terrorists, others call them freedom fighters, either way Iraqi nationalism will not allow for foreign dictatorships.  America invaded Iraq in the hope of spreading their political ideals.  They invaded a country and toppled the government.  That was a breach of International Law and against all International mandates.  The terrorist are the Americans, however the Iraqis were called the terrorists with alleged possession of WMDs.  The Iraqi armed forces are not as mighty as the mighty super powers holding the nuclear technology.  The brotherhood of Islam is the Iraqi army.  There might be some conflict within Iraq as different tribes have some differences in their culture, however, the Muslim brotherhood is strong.  Islam nationalism of the middle east stretched into the Americas and Europe.  911 has not been proven to be of Muslim conception, however they seem to be the most deserving culprit.  They have motive and means.  It must be kept in mind that it would have been difficult for someone as high profile as Saddam Hussein to have masterminded an attack as epic as 911.  The Islamic brotherhood is large and spread, but not well managed.  911 was a feat that could not be replicated by any state.  It was an underground movement presently living in the US.  There is no proof that they had any connection to the old world.  There is a secret intelligence service of the west that monitor the activities of all high profile leaders of the middle east.  Any order from the middle east would have been picked up by pentagon.  Iraq may be culturally and economically strong, however militarily they are weak.  During the past eight years, Iraq insurgents have battled their way to victory.  Without an Air Force.  Without an Army.  Without a Navy.  Individuals!  Terrorist bombers.  People who will blow themselves up in a crusade to save their nation.  It is non-state actors that act upon their own will and conspire attacks on the American forces without direction or finance.  ‘Since the last days of the Ottoman Empire, young army officer gathered to discuss politics’.  Iraq are a force to be reckoned with.

From as early as the seventh century, Iraq has been an Islamic state, hence a state with deep history and solidarity, a force to be reckoned with.  Over the centuries, the word of Muhammad spread slowly over the subcontinent.  There are bonds that were formed between the people for centuries.  Moses and Jesus were also of the area and spread to the west the religious philosophies of Judaism and Christianity.  Islam however, did not spread west.  It was contained to the middle east surroundings, perhaps due to external dominant, aggressive states that had developed over time.  Over the centuries, the Islamic empires have crossed into India, north Africa and stretch up into Turkey and beyond.  The identity of the middle east people is Islamic.  That is set in stone and will not change.  The Koran is the text and the burka is pretty much a symbol of sexual awareness, not available anywhere else.  Praying five times a day is just one of the aspects of this demanding and controlling religion.  The culture is the law.  Politics in the middle east starts at the Koran.  Even though all states will not explicitly acknowledge the fact, all middle east states are theocracies.  Islamic states maintain a soft power.  A brotherhood .  An alliance that could be quite hegemonic if organized well.  The problems arose from the invasion of the Ottoman Empire by the British during WWI.  The problems of the west found themselves in the middle of a well organized Islamic empire and crumbled it.  After WWII, it was too difficult for the Muslim brotherhood to be managed by a single authority.  Over the past century, the middle east has suffered great turmoil, even conflict with different factions of the Islamist nation, however it is inevitable, taking into consideration the current revolutions throughout the middle east, that the Islamic brotherhood will unite and revolt into a super power.  All great societies were built by revolt.  The Americans, the Soviets, the Germans, and the French have all had internal civil wars and rose to be super powers within this nuclear world.  The riddance of all the anarchical state leaders will prove beneficial for the Arab world.  A United Arab Federation will ensue.  There is a sign of continuity and change with the rule of Iraq.  It was a dictatorship prior to the British invasion of the first world war.  It was also another evil dictatorship before the American 2003 invasion.  An element of continuity in change.  The aggressive change in governments were both unexplained for.  Foreign turmoil, economic problems and leadership problems and lets not forget the cultural problems of religion found their way into Iraq and crushed their governments.  It was almost as if Iraq were minding their own business when they were attacked by the west.  An Islamic state attacked by the west, twice.  An Islamic state that will not be beaten and will revolt for power at all means.

Iraq is a soft power regardless which International Relations theory one looks at.  The realist tradition works both ways; there are actors on both sides.  Both sides are realistic in their thinking.  The Iraqis want a sovereign state and have the right to demand so.  Any form of aggression as evident in the 2003 invasion will be met by aggression in kind.  That is the realist tradition.  Even if the forces are not well organized and seem to be random acts, there is a solidarity and common goals amongst the Iraqis for sovereignty.  On the other side of the table are the American forces who are also realists.  They need oil.  The Texan oil is just not enough to supply the entire world with power.  As the Americans have taken up the role of International police, they just have to invade and attempt to take control of the oil.  That is in the realist tradition.  The west follow the school of classical liberalism.  They believe in democratic traditions, or at least preach it and demand that the rest of the world adopt democratic policies.  Whenever they have a conflict of interest with a foreign state, the rogue state must be freed of their tyrannical rule.  It happened in Korea.  It happened in Vietnam.  It happened in Iraq.  Korea and Vietnam had China and USSR backing the other side, in a battle of ideologies, while Iraq was purely a battle for the juice of the industrial era, oil.  It could be seen as a clash of civilizations with the whole middle east against the Caucasian world as the whole Islamic world have oil deposits.  Maybe it's a holy war.  The Jews and Christians against the Muslims.  However, this conflict must not be confused for what it really is; a conflict of ideology.  The non-democratic school of socialism against the school of liberalism.  Even though it is not evident at first sight and may seem disorganized from afar, this battle has in-depth calculations and has more players than is obvious.  The cold war was a war of secret agents, double agents, conspiracy and treachery.  There was trouble in Vietnam, Korea, the Balkans, Afghanistan, while the weapons were being traced back to the two hegemonic powers.  What was really going on was really difficult to understand.  Similarly, the state of Iraq may be described as radicalism or radical fundamentalism, however the reality may be something even darker.  The threat of underground networks spreading its arms all over the middle east into north Africa, all the way from central command Moscow, may seem a little deluded, however how could civilians be aware of the global game of domination with petty pawns everywhere.  Iraq is in the middle of the world and regardless what political stance it takes and who it sides with, it will be a major player in global politics, a force to be reckoned with.

As the US led 2003 invasion of Iraq was masterminded without much strategy, it was first called a search for weapons of mass destruction quickly followed by the notion of the spread of liberal values.  Iraq is an oil rich state which affects its importance in world politics.  Geographically in the middle of the world, central to land trading routes.  Economically, a world superpower, due to the sole fact that it possesses the energy source that the modern industrial world is so dependent on.  Militarily, a weak state, however the strength of the jihadist is epic.  Labelled terrorists, the freedom fighters of Iraq are a force to be reckoned with.  The Islamic brotherhood, with a history dating back to the seventh century and ties to the strong Ottoman Empire, are spread all over the world and a sure threat to global security.  Military coercion in the middle east to maintain control over the oil have their effects on the other side of the globe without an evident military occupation.  All parties involved in conflict follow the school of realism.  When diplomacy fails, aggression is the only way to deal with the aggressor.  The west desire to spread their ideals of liberalism to the middle east, however they fail to see that they are living in an anarchical state of affairs in the west with individual states holding the rights to sovereignty.  The west have no solution to world peace as they are not willing to concede defeat and surrender their weapons to the world federated government.