Category: Columnists

• Hold the Applause

  August 8, 2020 12:39 pm Comments Off on Hold the Applause

  Content warning: this article discusses sexual assault and sexual harassment.
  To mark the third anniversary of the landmark Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) report on sexual assault and sexual harassment on university campuses, the ANU hosted a summit on Respectful Relationships over Zoom on July 31st.. The summit discussed the ANU’s progress on the Sexual Violence Prevention Strategy (SVPS), a strategy that has taken three years to develop despite the urgency of the AHRC report. Indeed, what we cannot forget is that the AHRC report ranked the ANU as first across Australian universities for the percentage of students sexually harassed, and second for the percentage of students sexually assaulted. These statistics are deeply unsettling, cementing to current and future students that what should be a safe campus for all, devastatingly, is not.
  This truth remains relevant today, three years after the report’s publication. Disappointingly, but bringing no surprise to student activists, this has been consistently ignored by those representing the institution. True, the ANU has made a number of changes that strive to make the campus safer for its students, notably the creation of a Respectful Relationships unit alongside an Online Reporting Tool. Nonetheless, the achievement of these two changes over the course of three years, is frankly, abysmal. It is a nod to the fact that the ANU is merely focused on appeasing rightfully angry student activists instead of taking the initiative to spearhead cultural change. This sentiment was crystallised when discussions during the summit were dominated by institutional heads all giving themselves and each other metaphorical pats on the back. The tone underpinning the summit was one of self-congratulation towards the ANU. It was a complete disjoint from the sombre spirit felt by student activists who knew that there were still students falling through the cracks due to the ANU’s delayed and often inadequate action against a backdrop of a slow change in systematic and institutional culture. What we needed from you, ANU, was not lip-service and self-congratulatory comments, but self-reflection on the work that still needs to be done.
  In an open letter to the ANU, ANUSA representatives outlined seven key recommendations for the path forward in creating a safer campus for all students. What struck me in these recommendations was that student activists needed to ask that the ANU commit to “not only accepting, but also actively seeking out, student feedback and cooperation with student leaders across campus”. Such a demand seems obvious and should be inherent to any working relationship between a university and its students. But the condescending and often patronising tone that the heads of the ANU adopted when talking to students during the summit is a more accurate depiction of how the institution views their students’ activism. The potent combination of self-congratulation and assertion of institutional superiority, effectively, pulling ‘rank’ of staff over students, actively devalues and delegitimises rather than illuminates the tireless and hidden work of student activists.
  An alarming precedent is thus set where current and future activists cannot rely on their university for the crucial networks of trust and support. The ANU is not only failing survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment through slow institutional and systematic change. They are also failing the past and current students who work voluntarily in this area to regain the fundamental rights of safety for all students. In some cases, they are failing those who intersect across the two. The safety and protection of all students should never be an afterthought, nor a burden that is shouldered singularly by the young adults who enroll in the ANU because they believe in the institution’s ability to provide a safe space to learn, collaborate and grow. When the ANU treats it as such, they are failing all students.
  Let us hold off on the applause then, shall we?
   
   
   

  Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.

  Queenie Ung-Lam

• Southside, Why Bother?

  August 4, 2020 8:32 pm Comments Off on Southside, Why Bother?

  The ANU boasts a worldly and truly global body of students and academics that hail from around Australia and all over the world. Students (used to be able to) venture out across the globe on exchange and academics came to the ANU from places as far as Japan and Canada. However, it has always struck me that there is one very close geographic blind spot for most ANU students to visit. This region is Canberra’s Southside.
  Starting at the lakeside neighbourhoods of Yarralumla and Barton and stretching down as far as Fyshwick and Tuggeranong, Canberra’s southern district is much larger than its northern counterpart. Yet, if your only guide was the average ANU student, you would be hard pressed to find someone with practical knowledge of the inner south, let alone a place as far flung as Tuggeranong.
  The ‘iron curtain’ of interest for a lot of students falls just south of Parliament House. It is not unusual for an ANU student to live in Canberra for the four years typical of an ANU double degree and never once venture past the northern banks of Lake Burley Griffin. Wedged between Black Mountain and Mount Ainslie, ANU’s immigrant population consists primarily of Sydneysiders and Melbournians living in the familiar confines of the Inner North.
  You could say that these urbanites may just enjoy the proximity to a central business district with similar concrete and glass monoliths to downtown Sydney or Melbourne. Being an Inner Northerner myself and having lived within multiple locations all a 30-minute walk from Lonsdale St, I think that there is a more complex answer.
  It’s easiest to start with the assertion that a significant number of ANU students begin their Canberra experience living in the Inner North. There are around 11,000 undergraduate students at ANU and several thousand places in undergraduate student residential colleges, so it is likely that they begin and remain as Inner Northerners during their time here. Before becoming a virtually online university, ANU was in the Inner North and it was easier for students to live close by.
  There is a further cultural element to it. The Inner North has a connection with students that other areas of Canberra do not have. The presence of completely vegan cafés on Lonsdale street and pubs with Thursday specials say more about their target audience than ACT demographic data ever could. One trip to that hallowed establishment residing in the Sydney Building would make any sane university student attempt to live within a 15 minute drunk walking distance to Civic. Similar to Melbourne’s Brunswick and Sydney’s Newtown, the image and reputation of the Inner North is intimately tied with the activities of students, specifically consuming niche herbivorous café food and getting drunk.
  Known as Canberra’s university, ANU could more specifically claim to be the Inner North’s university. Some may disagree, and I think that an argument could be made for suburbs like the Kingston Foreshore to fall under the list of student suburbs. Perhaps a Tuggeranong campus may be needed to round off the Canberra experience. Yet the point remains— the identity of ANU is intimately linked to Canberra’s Inner North.
   
   
   

  Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.
   

  Eammon Gumley

• Forget About The Trains

  July 29, 2020 8:30 pm Comments Off on Forget About The Trains

  My friends and I often refer to being on track for our studies and goals as “being on the train”. When you’re on the train, you have mastered the balance of university studies, social life and work. You are a go-getter, seeking out opportunities to further your knowledge or pursue your passions, but most importantly, you aren’t stressed about any of it. You are riding along in the train, calm and composed, achieving and smashing your goals. All is well.
  During catch-ups, we can discern each other’s mental states through this metaphor that we’ve built up. Sometimes I’ll hear about how my friends are nailing their goals and I’ll send the congratulatory message, “Woo, she’s ON the train!!” There’s the imagery of them whizzing along those train tracks, throwing kisses out of open windows as they hurtle towards their long-awaited final destination. Other times, I’ll say in a group chat, “I AM OFF THE TRAIN”, signaling to my nearest and dearest that I’m frazzled and disjointed. Caps locks add the drama, trying to impart the vision of me lying face down across my bed, lamenting unchecked to-do lists and half-finished essay topic sentences.
  With the sudden onslaught of COVID-19, being “off the train” took on a very different meaning. It was no longer simply procrastinating an essay, the culprit that empty wine bottle still rolling on the dining table. As a group of friends, we encountered mental blockades, fuelled by a sense of unknown isolation, deep-seated loneliness and newfound restlessness. We all wanted to be “on that train”, zooming through university assessments and enjoying our suddenly imposed downtime, but our new disrupted routines hampered our ability to relax into this time. We were, after all, stuck in our own homes, unable to get to the train station, let alone hop on board.
  For the first time since we began using this metaphor, mental health became woven into its conceptual nature. Being “off the train” no longer merely symbolised procrastination or a sense of laziness, but an unshakeable listlessness, one that prevented us from focusing on university or personal goals. Such a sudden shift in what it meant to be achieving and feeling fulfilled by your work made it essential for us to take the time to re-centre ourselves. An inability to hop on the train is an opportunity to evaluate why finding yourself on that platform is so desirable, to question whether or not you need to be on board in the first place. A friend described it as instead of wanting to “hop on the train”, you suddenly find that you want to walk instead, taking the time to meander along the scenic route, time frames and train stops abandoned. We were learning how to accept this changed pathway and to rejoice in the change, instead of ruing it. All began to seem well.
  Despite hopes of campus re-opening as the holidays wind down, we are entering another semester of remote learning. Victoria has entered its second lockdown and cases have appeared in our haven Batemans Bay. With this rise in cases, it becomes even more imperative to re-evaluate our previous norms for being “on or off the train”. Self-care, a focus on mental health and slowing down needs to feature in our discussions about the expectations for this new semester. Once again, we need to re-examine what our final destination should be and the best vehicle for the journey. With challenges and uncertainty every day, we must prioritise mental health and self-care, making sure to not rely on expectations of past norms that no longer fit our current circumstances.
  Forget about the trains, I’m going on a stroll instead.
   
   

  Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.

  Queenie Ung-Lam

• Foreigners in Our Own Country

  July 27, 2020 3:51 pm Comments Off on Foreigners in Our Own Country

  A couple of years ago at a pub, a notorious MP from the NSW Nationals Party joked to my friends and I that they had a policy to build a wall to keep the Victorians out of NSW. We laughed at the apparent absurdity of the idea, although I wasn’t completely sure that he was joking either. It wasn’t the first or last outlandish idea from the realm of Australian regional politics that I heard that night. As of two weeks ago however, this joke became a reality as hundreds of soldiers were stationed at the border to enforce the ban on non-essential travel from Victoria into NSW.
  While it can be pointed out that the states and territories have had similar border closures, this one is different in two distinct ways. Firstly, the closing of the border is the first time in 100 years that Victoria and NSW have been shut off from one another. The only other VIC-NSW closure was in 1918 during the Spanish Influenza Epidemic.
  Secondly, the first round of border closures earlier this year seemed as close to a blanket national policy as  independent decisions from states and territories can be. The states and territories were all facing a similar threat and the decision to close or limit border access was almost multilateral. This time, restrictions against Victorians are only tightening while other states are beginning to open to one another.
  Victorians have quickly had to come to terms with the reality that they are now in the same position as foreigners entering Australia. Restriction of access to nearly all states and territories and two weeks of  quarantine for individuals with permits are par for the course for Victorians. In some places, Victorians are also facing the same attitudes that foreigners occasionally face in Australia. Many Victorians, including myself, have seen others actively distance to a safe one and a half meters when we are asked where we are from.
  This is a perfectly normal and justifiable reaction from states and individuals to the ongoing disaster in Victoria. As of the time of writing, cases have increased to an unexplainable 300+ cases a day and show no sign of decreasing. However, what the reactions do demonstrate is that the concepts of federalism and nationalism only go so far. Aside from questions surrounding the constitutionality of internal border closures, state populations in Australia have become more insular and group identity seems to have significantly shifted ‘state-wards’. This is no surprise, as COVID-policy is overwhelmingly the responsibility of the state and territory governments. The same trend that is seeing State Premiers such as Mark McGowan become rock stars is driving an identity shift away from federal nationalism.
  When that notorious MP joked about a Trumpian wall at the border, I doubt that he could see past
  the bottom of his schooner glass, let alone what the future held. The Victorian border affair represents just another shift in a long line of changing attitudes and conventions surrounding federalism in Australia. These changes are actively revealing Australian’s overlapping geopolitical identities and redefining what it really means to be Australian.
   
   

  Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.

  Eammon Gumley

• Draining the Swamp

  February 25, 2017 6:30 pm Comments Off on Draining the Swamp

  The Armchair Expert
  In his future, the author is a columnist for the New York Times and Time magazine. At the moment, he’s from Melbourne, in second year and trying to pass an arts degree. His column, The Armchair Expert, tries to make sense of world politics in the age of Trump, Brexit and Turnbull.

  Seventeen of Trump’s cabinet picks have as much money as the bottom 43 million U.S. households combined. That isn’t to say being wealthy in and of itself is a sin, but it does suggest that such powerful individuals may have ulterior motives. It suggests we need to be informed. So, pending Senate confirmation, here’s a thing or two you need to know about your 2017 championship cabinet.
  Secretary of State – Rex Tillerson
  This 64-year-old Texan is CEO of the world’s largest publically traded oil and gas company, Exxon Mobile. Along with refusing to release his tax returns – a common theme in the Trump administration – the Senate’s biggest concern over Rex is his relationship with Putin. Tillerson led Exxon’s Russian interests throughout the 90s and in 2013 was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship medal – whatever that is. Still, he is by all accounts an excellent manager and a firm negotiator, stay tuned to see when Russian oil sanctions are lifted.
  Head of the Environmental Protection Agency – Scott Pruitt
  A staunch Republican since the time of Christ, Pruitt has sued the agency he will now head 12 times. Not surprisingly, Pruitt’s appointment has been met with trepidation from those who value clean air and polar bears. The New York Times came out firing, labelling Pruitt a climate change denialist and a ‘close ally of the fossil fuel industry.’ Pruitt claims his priority for the agency is ‘regulatory rollback’ and believes that ‘the debate is far from settled’ over climate change. Take that as you will.
  Secretary of the Treasury – Steve Mnuchin
  Perhaps Max Abelson of Bloomberg News described the new Secretary of the Treasury best when he said, ‘If you were to write a novel about a privileged young man setting out on a privileged course of privilege, you would write about Steven Mnuchin.’ Mnuchin is the type of guy Tommy Hilfiger would love. He attended Yale in 1981, where he was a member of the secret Skull and Bones society and drove a Porsche. Later in life he financed American Sniper. Pretty cool. A lesser known fact is that Mnuchin bounced between Solomon Brothers and Goldman Sachs before he entered the subprime mortgage game in 2009, buying a lending firm for $1.6 billion with fellow investors, and selling it six years later for $3.4 billion. After acquiring the institution, his new bank was labelled a ‘foreclosure machine’, foreclosing on roughly 36,000 homeowners in 6 years. This preppy New-Englander is basically just one of the bad guys from The Big Short.
  Attorney General – Jeff Sessions
  In early February this year, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren was silenced by Republicans on the floor of the Senate for reading a letter written in 1986 by the wife of Dr Martin Luther King, in opposition to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III’s appointment as a federal judge – a position that he ultimately did not get. Despite this, he is undeniably popular in his home state, running unopposed for a Senate seat in Alabama during 2014. He has been described as ‘amnesty’s worst enemy’, opposing nearly every immigration bill passing through the Senate that includes a path to citizenship. He is a debt hawk whose conservative fiscal and economic ideas may contrast with Trump’s proposed trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. To reassure us though, the allegations of racism that have tainted his career – again from none other than Mrs Coretta Scott King – have been adamantly denied.
  Secretary of Defence – General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis
  Trump has called ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis ‘the closest thing to George Patton that we have.’ True to the ‘once a marine always a marine’ mantra, Mattis is more of a warrior than a manager used to balancing his budgets. His qualifications include being demoted by Obama for his aggressive stance on Iran, after calling the state ‘the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East.’ Still, unlike the President-elect, Mattis is surprisingly opposed to torture techniques. His appointment, on top of Trump recently putting the entire country of Iran ‘on notice’, means we should probably keep an eye on how the Iranian nuclear deal flies under the new administration.
  Secretary of Education – Betsy Devos
  Last but certainly not the hardest to make fun of, Betsy ‘guns in schools’ Devos is perhaps the most controversial administration pick since Jefferson Davis became President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. In a way, you’ve got to feel for Betsy. Her Senate questioning didn’t exactly go her way. Highlights include her telling the Senator from Connecticut – the state home to the infamous Sandy Hook school shooting – that guns should be in schools to protect from ‘potential grizzlies’. As in the bear. Bernie Sanders then had a field day by asking Devos, ‘if you were not a multi-billionaire, if your family had not made hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to the Republican Party, do you think you would be sitting here today?’ To which the answer was an awkward ‘yeah kinda’. Capping off her less than ideal confirmation process, the Senate voted 50-50 to confirm her, with two Republicans and two Independents joining the 46 Democratic Senators. This forced our Lord and Saviour Vice President Pence to step in and cast a deciding vote: 51-50.
  Prior to his election, liberals often reassured themselves that Trump’s success would rest on those he chose to surround himself with, that the day to day running of America would be delegated away from Trump himself. This snapshot doesn’t do much to reassure these hopefuls. This strange mix of populism, oligarch and conservatism is given flavouring by additional inexperience and loyalty to Trump. Within this cabinet, ideologies will clash. Within it lies free trade advocates such as Tillerson and proposals for a 35 percent tariff on Chinese goods. Within it lies fiscal conservatives such as Jeff Sessions and a trillion-dollar infrastructure program.
  Trump’s cabinet is a web of contradictions, and much like the President himself they’re old, white and rich.

  Anonymous

• Why Clinton Will Win

  October 17, 2016 12:09 pm Comments Off on Why Clinton Will Win

  The Armchair Expert
  As an Arts and IR student from Melbourne, my column offers a broad perspective on current International affairs. I’m in my first year, draw political cartoons and major in history. Living on campus and keen on politics, my column Armchair Expert hopes to keep you informed for when politics come up in conversation.

  Everyone, it seems, has their own insider information about the U.S. election. We love regurgitating, with a smug look on our faces, that “Trump has tapped into something” or that “you might be surprised come November.” It’s as if the FBI has had a sit down with every Politics major and said, “This is just between you and me, OK?”
  But there actually is a fairly accurate way to predict why Hillary will win. Just look at a map.
  For starters, the Democrats have a huge advantage: California. California is the Texas of the Democrats. The Democrats’ ‘A New Hope’ to the Republicans’ ‘The Empire` Strikes Back’. It’s the biggest state in the union and has 55 Electoral College votes. Remember, you only need 270 to become President.
  Next up on the pro-Clinton list are New York (29 votes), Illinois (20 votes) and New Jersey (14 votes). All solid blue. Compare Clinton’s top four states to Trump’s. Even Texas isn’t considered safe this year, but we’ll give it to him anyway. Texas has 38 electoral votes (17 less than California). The next biggest red states are Tennessee (11 votes), Indiana (11 votes) and Mississippi (10 votes). So, Trump’s biggest four states give him a grand total of 70 electoral votes. Only 200 to go. Clinton’s big four, on the other hand, give her 118. Almost double.
  The good news for the Democrats is that this trend continues down the page. The Founding Fathers had the bright idea that you could lose more states, and still win. Worse yet for Trump, you could win the total popular vote, and still lose. But, if there’s hope for Trump, it lies in the battleground states. It’s all very dramatic.
  Trump, however, shouldn’t be too hopeful. Florida is the need-to-win state for Trump with its precious 29 electoral votes, though it’d be nice for Clinton too. Clinton, however, has consistently polls higher than Trump in the state that Obama won in ’08 and ’12 – and everyone knows Clinton is secretly just Obama.
  All in all, we may as well start acting like Clinton has already won. Something unheard of would have to happen for her not to – like a leaked document showing a $1 billion loss or a leaked 2005 clip of her objectifying women. But that’d never happen…
  Winning the White House, however, is only the first half of Clinton’s worries. Currently, the Republicans control the senate 54 seats to 44, and the house 247 to 188 due to some generous gerrymandering. Yet, in part due to the right honourable Republican presidential nominee, the Democrats have a real chance of overtaking this trend. If the Senate and House turn blue, genuine change may sweep America. Clinton may even be able to fulfil the promises she’s made to voters and politicians alike throughout her campaign. Infrastructure, tax reform and gun control may actually become a reality.
  But folks, this is the U.S. of A. and it’s unfortunately likely we’ll see a repeat of the wartime tactics the Republicans deployed against Obama in 2008 if (when) Clinton is elected, with the right wing simply not negotiating. Obama was the first President to have been denied a budget hearing in the senate. When asked why they were delaying the passing of a budget bill in 2013, a Tea Party Senator replied, “We want to get something out of him, we just don’t know what.” He was also the first President to be denied a Supreme Court hearing. Sadly, this treatment was likely because he was the first African-American President, which indicates that Clinton – the first woman President – may find herself at the receiving end of similar prejudice.
  If politics is sport for nerds, counting electoral votes is keeping score. All in all, the author predicts that Hillary Clinton will win roughly 330 electoral votes and topple Trump in a landslide. The state of the Union, however, remains to be seen.

  Anonymous

• Why Trump will win

  October 3, 2016 10:01 pm Comments Off on Why Trump will win

  The Armchair Expert
  As an Arts and IR student from Melbourne, my column offers a broad perspective on current International affairs. I’m in my first year, draw political cartoons and major in history. Living on campus and keen on politics, my column Armchair Expert hopes to keep you informed for when politics come up in conversation.

   
  When Trump announced his campaign, the Huffington Post said that it would cover it in the Entertainment section – this may be harder to do when he’s president.
  Put simply, Donald Trump will win because it’s the Republicans’ turn to win. It’s hard for an Australian to understand this type of polarisation. Whilst we are a two-party system, at least we have the Greens and old mate Pauline to poke fun at. In America, the only non-Democrat or Republican in the senate is Bernie Sanders – who ran for the Democratic nomination. This ‘us and them’, ‘with us or against us’ politics is the American way, and historically, it hasn’t been such a bad thing. When a Republican like Herbert Hoover dragged us into a recession, we could rely on a Democrat like Franklin D. Roosevelt to pump up government spending. When a Democrat like Lyndon B. Johnson threw us into Vietnam, the Republican Richard Nixon got us out. When a Democrat like Barack Obama introduces Health Care, opens up Cuba, and makes a historic nuclear deal with Iran, you can rely on a Republican/Libertarian/Palmer-United-Party-Member like Donald Trump to increase the President’s salary, build monuments of himself and nuke Japan. Simple.
  2012 was both wonderful and terrifying for Democrats. They had won the White House again, but in doing so, they lost it in 2016. Eight years is long enough for any diehard republican to watch the first African-American president ‘be the worst President we’ve ever had’, let alone twelve. I’m sure the Democratic establishment was thrilled when it became apparent that Donald Trump was tipped to win the nomination. So thrilled, in fact, that Obama was game to spend a large chunk of both his last White House Correspondence Dinners making fun of Trump.
  But when you laugh at Trump, you laugh at Trump voters. You laugh at the people that hate you already, and you embolden them.
  All Trump has had to do to get this far, is be blonde, be white, and not be called Barack Hussein Obama. With Trump occasionally posting a Twitter photo in a private jet eating KFC, the everyday fat blonde white republican can relate to him – albeit without the jet (or car (or custom gold bike)). Here at the ANU, we like to think we’re geniuses at foreign policy, and assess the world with a rational, utility-maximising mindset. We also expect others to do the same. That is why we cannot understand why people vote for Trump. He offends minorities, majorities, the rich, the poor, you and me. We cannot understand that Americans do not vote for policies or budgets, but for people and personalities.
  The other reason Trump will win, is of course, called Hillary Clinton. No one likes a Hillary Clinton. Again, this is hard for Australians to understand. We see a sensible, centre-left (think: centre-right), experienced, woman candidate who we’d gladly spend our Saturday voting for if the alternative was Donald Trump. But, as always, Americans are the exception to the rule. They see the first lady of Arkansas in 1979, the first lady of the United States in 1993, the senator for New York since 2001, the ‘not Obama’ of 2008, and the Secretary of State since 2009. This condition has been termed “Clinton-fatigue” – a disease not unlike pneumonia. They want her to stop hogging up all of the airtime, even if she does want to give them free health care – or whatever.
  While I for one welcome our new overlords, I’ll level with you – despite the title of this article, Trump probably won’t win. The republican base has been shrinking since the 90s, and Clinton will probably scrape through on the median-voter theory. But, if he does win, it won’t be because he’s a Republican, it will be because he’s not a Democrat.

  Anonymous

• Pax Australiana

  September 20, 2016 11:38 pm Comments Off on Pax Australiana

  The Armchair Expert
  As an Arts and IR student from Melbourne, my column offers a broad perspective on current International affairs. I’m in my first year, draw political cartoons and major in history. Living on campus and keen on politics, my column Armchair Expert hopes to keep you informed for when politics come up in conversation.

  Historically, Australian foreign policy drifts somewhere between America and China. We are simultaneously drawn towards China’s economic orbit and America’s seemingly infinite military. But with an editorial in the Chinese state media calling Australia an “ideal target to warn and strike” in the South China Sea, and faced with potential President Trump’s neglect accelerating a U.S. decline, Australia is at a crossroad it has never before had to consider.
  Australia is seen by many in the East as a Western outpost on their doorstep, and perhaps with good reason. By 2017, 2500 U.S. Marines will be stationed in Darwin. The elite Marine Rotation is designed for the rapid capture and hold of territory until reinforcements arrive. Not exactly one of Beijing’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
  But this move is not the first in the chess game between East and West. From Chinese donations to Australian politicians, to an attempted purchase of AusGrid, to an attempt by Chinese state investment firms to purchase a cattle station roughly 1% of Australia’s landmass, there do seem to be ulterior motives behind these business ventures.
  As the South China Sea (and in the not-too-distant future, the Pacific Ocean) become contested waters, Australia faces a difficult question: should we sign up for an unknown and untested Chinese alliance, or should Australia place its bets with old reliable U.S. hegemony?
  A ‘one or the other’ choice is dangerous. If we cosy up to China, short-term economic benefits will come at the cost of a pro-democracy worldview and the withdrawal of American security. However, if we fall in line behind America yet again, China will punish us economically.
  But perhaps there is a third choice? Perhaps we have more chips on the table then we think. Perhaps they need us, more than we need them.
  Whilst we are admittedly – and sadly – a middle power, we are strong economically, militarily and politically. We have leverage over both the U.S. and China. Yes, if either lost our support they would continue on without so much as a blink, but our allegiance is symbolic for a chain of regional powers that includes South Korea, Japan, India, Indonesia, Thailand and New Zealand. One arrow is weak, many arrows are strong  – and the biggest arrow in the region is Australia.
  So Australia should have demands of its own. Demands such as free trade without open flow of investment.
  Foreign investment in Australian assets such as, let’s say, housing, shoots up demand, making it near impossible for Australians such as myself to live near a city. I don’t want to be paying my rent in Yuan to the CCP when I’m 25. This ought to encourage Australia to invest in industries that aren’t reliant on Chinese demand, such as agriculture.
  Above all, do not think that Australia needs a greater power to survive. Australia is the power. Australia’s potential for regional dominance has not been capitalised upon in its 250-year history as a modern nation. Increasing immigration to regional Australia, drawing in big business through tax cuts, capitalising on our competitive advantages of resource and agricultural wealth, boosting our military, and being able to effectively deploy it in the region, would all increase the (already substantial) leverage Australia wields in international politics.
  We already spend the twelfth-most on our military globally. Australia hasn’t had a recession for 25 years, while America has had three. Demand for Australian goods is strong. All in all, Malcolm Turnbull put it best when he said “there’s never been a more exciting time to be an Australian.”
  Australia ought to throw its weight around on the world stage. This is, after all, the dawn of a multipolar era. The country must take more assertive positions over such issues as the South China Sea dispute, and not be afraid to show leadership with our neighbours over resource management and human rights violations. Between China and America, I choose America. Between America and Australia, I choose Australia.

  Anonymous

• Monarchists Anonymous

  9:40 am Comments Off on Monarchists Anonymous

  Deep down, you love the monarchy. You accept that it’s impractical, you know it runs on tax payers’ money, you’re jealous of Kate Middleton, but you love them. The reason you love them is because of this very impracticality.
  If you judge the monarchy and Australia’s place beneath it based on its ‘practicality’, you miss the point. Australia’s head of state is not there to be efficient – quite the opposite. The Queen is there to be a figurehead, to command respect, and personify Australia’s – and a quarter of the world’s – history. History matters because we are just living on the next page of it. If history doesn’t matter, today doesn’t matter – so we must value history. And so, the monarchy matters.
  I challenge you to fault the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Your head of state literally fought the Nazis in World War II. She entertains presidents and has to shake hands with dirty school children. She is the longest ruling monarch and a great-grandmother. What have you done today?
  Indeed, I agree that Australian politics has lost the trust of the Australian people. I am, after all, an Australian citizen, and I just witnessed a disgustingly low vote for the Natural Party of Government (the Coalition (obviously)).
  But, my fellow Australians, you are heading down the wrong path if you believe that throwing away a lot of what makes Australia great will revolutionise the Australian political system overnight. A half-hearted Republican push is not going to improve the Australian system. Think of this as Australia’s Brexit.
  Australia’s history is the history of discovery, of bravery, and of expansion. The rock through the good and the bad has been the monarchy – and it now serves as a history which should be used to inspire the future. Change for the sake of change is inefficient, but change out of desperation is dangerous.
  Some, of course, disagree. Some will point to atrocities committed against the indigenous peoples of the new world and argue that this mismanagement outweighs any good our ancestors achieved. I am not arguing for the glorification of the dark pages of our history, I am arguing for the good ones. The Monarchy should mould to current day opinion, and reflect its subjects. Indigenous Australians and Australians from abroad ought not feel uninvited from the party that is the Monarchy, but should rally towards its open doors. The monarchy should be a source of pride for all who live beneath it.
  I agree the monarchy is not perfect, but we should not deem it beyond repair. Many Australian’s feel disconnected, or even just uninformed, about our head of State. I would advocate for a renewed push of pride for the monarchy – the type of push that led Australians to name states after Queen Victoria, to volunteer and die to serve the empire against evils, and to build statues of our leaders.
  In classic millennial style, my readers are asking themselves what can they get out of it. I would reply, ask not what your monarchy can do for you, but what you can do for your monarchy.
  If the past doesn’t convince you, perhaps the dystopian future will. Picture a future with Tony Abbott as President of Australia. That phrase was hard to type. If you’re telling yourself you’d never elect him, you already did in 2013. Far better to live under an unelected but dignified monarchy with no real power, than under an elected but humiliating President with executive authority.
  So, Australia, vote no for a republic. If Australia replaces the monarchy with a power hungry Australian president, I guarantee you will wake up the next day and feel as if a little bit of you has died.

  Anonymous

• Liberating North Korea

  August 17, 2016 10:52 pm Comments Off on Liberating North Korea

  The Armchair Expert
  As an Arts and IR student from Melbourne, my column offers a broad perspective on current International affairs. I’m in my first year, draw political cartoons and major in history. Living on campus and keen on politics, my column Armchair Expert hopes to keep you informed for when politics come up in conversation.

  Now is the time to decrease aid and increase aggression against the regime.
  The year is now 102… in North Korea. The DPRK’s calendar starts on the birthday of Kim-Il-Sung, the grandfather of Kim-Jong-Un and the father of North Korea. While Soviet Russia at least pretended to be democratic, elections in North Korea literally have one candidate. The North is a country that considers the Hollywood film ‘The Interview’ to be “an act of war” and reports that when Kim-Jong-Il was born on the top of a mountain, a double rainbow appeared, a new star was created, and the seasons changed from winter to spring.
  However amusing this may be for us Westerners, the North Korean people aren’t laughing. Life for the 25 million people living under the regime is unacceptable by any standard. The country’s command and control economy is woefully inefficient, with all resources being allocated by the state, including incoming foreign aid. The result is a fat army and a skinny population. As much as 25% of the North’s GDP is spent on the military, and around 70% of the population, or 18 million people, are considered food insecure. On top of a suppressive domestic policy that includes zero political freedom and 7 years of compulsory military service, North Korea’s international saber-rattling is reason enough to spark an aggressive international response.
  Put simply, the U.S. should reply to the blackmail of nuclear threats, and the starving of the North’s population, by toppling the regime.
  The DPRK has recently embarked on a charm offensive in diplomacy. On January 10, Pyongyang offered to halt its nuclear testing if Washington cancelled its upcoming military drills with the South. Along with state visits to Moscow, and representation at the UN for the first time in 15 years, the DPRK is trying to start a new chapter.
  These unprecedented moves are a sign of desperation, not strength. It is likely that the North has begun to realise that its military and political brinkmanship – attempting to intimidate the US with nuclear threats while alarming the South with missile launches – is counterproductive. This squeeze is amplified from the East by the neglect of North Korea’s only ally – China. Beijing no longer treats Pyongyang as a special ally, nor its communist equal. Chinese advances in trade and diplomacy years ago have left the North at the starting blocks, and at times, China has even denied shipments of fuel and food to the starving communist bunker. This recent abandonment has prompted the North’s attempt to diversifying its allies.
  We ought to adopt a Reaganesque approach to dealing with this old communist enemy, and seize upon the fact that the North is clearly currently weak. Just as President Reagan replaced 40 years of ‘containment’ with a far more aggressive policy that undoubtedly accelerated the fall of the USSR, we too ought to combat the DPRK with similar objectives.
  Today’s ‘Evil Empire’ is not Soviet Russia but North Korea.
  During the 1980s, Reagan imposed harsh trade embargoes and economic aggression on the East, such as using Saudi Arabia (upon which Russia relied heavily for hard currency) to force down oil prices. The same tactics would be much more effective in today’s war, where the North is more reliant on global aid and world labour markets than the USSR ever was.
  It’s time to strong arm Pyongyang. Washington ought to increase pressure on Beijing and Moscow to sever ties with the North by convincing them that relations with America are far more valuable than relations with a dying despot. By removing the DPRK’s friendly neighbors with an ‘us or them’ threat, and increasing economic and military aggression, the foundations of North Korean society – the army and the party – will suffer financially and politically, leading to the painful, but necessary, collapse of the regime. Combined with harsh UN sanctions and a decrease in aid, the West can, and should, starve the North into submission.

  Anonymous