Stop War @ Hicks St - for David Hicks

You can't see it too well, but the street sign in the background says "Hicks St"

Dear ABC...

My posts are too infrequent these days, but here's a letter I just sent to the ABC, which I'll treat as open.

I am a regular listener to ABC RN. I recently read the transcript of “A narrative for a long war”, Background Briefing, 20 August 2006. I wish to express concern about balance in this program.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1716276.htm#, viewed 15 November 2006

The program deals with public relations activities by the US and its opponents in the Middle East. I was disappointed by the range of views presented by this program.

Comment was given by -

• John Rendon – “a PR strategist who does most of his work for the Pentagon” (US)
• Kylie Morris – “Channel 4 reporter” (UK)
• John Brown – “former US diplomat who resigned from the State Department over the decision to invade Iraq” (US)
• William Mccants – “researcher at the Centre for Combating Terrorism … [a]t the US Military Academy, West Point” (US)
• Dr Steven Corman – “in charge of the CSC, the Consortium for Strategic Communication at Arizona State University” (US)
• Mark Lynch – blogger (as Abu Aardvark) and political scientist (presumably US)
• Adel Iskandar – “Egyptian academic … from the American University in Washington, D.C.” (Egyptian/US)
  

Quotes were presented from -

• Donald Rumsfeld – US Secretary of Defense, extended comment from a speech
• Ted Sorenson – “President Kennedy's speech writer”, one question to Donald Rumsfeld
• GIMF “Global Islamic Media Front” – quotes of Shahzad Tanweer, quotes of responses to Rumsfeld
• “The management of savagery” (book) – readings
• US Army officer/s
• Tony Blair (GB), Condoleeza Rice (US), Pres Bashir Assad (Syria), Pres Ahmadinjehad (Iran)
  

Note this list does not include people from the Middle East, other than a US-resident and US-employed Egyptian, and the strangely similar quotes of Blair, Rice, Assad and Ahmadinjehad about creation of a “new Middle East”. Despite the similarity of their statements, I expect they hold very different underlying world views. Otherwise, the words from Middle Eastern sources were quotes rather than comments, and were subject to comment from Western participants.

So, I ask -

• where are non-Western world views displayed in this program
• (evidenced here but observed more broadly) why does the ABC seek British and US commentary on such matters, and treat this as independent commentary

I feel that Australian media tends to have a limited view of the world. I feel this is especially evident in socio-economic and political matters, but is probably discernable in other areas. This may or may not be a conscious decision, but it is an easy trap. I feel this happens because -

• we are English-speakers in a world where English is the lingua-franca, and so gravitate to opinions in our own language
• we are closely associated with the US and Britain in politics and culture
• as the pre-eminent world power and (arguably) centre of empire, the US inevitably tends to a parochial view (it’s not the first: vide “All roads lead to Rome”) and this is exacerbated by the US self-vision as the “indispensible nation”
• our own history and world-view is Anglo-American and is shared with this major world power
  

Over 20 years ago, I was resident in non-English speaking Europe. I was interested to find a broader world-view. I interpreted this as a culture which needs to understand other languages to exist in the world, and must enunciate, rather than borrow, its world-view. Returning to Australia was a lesson in a shrinking awareness and a limited vision. And thus, I consider that in a practical sense English is an advantage, but in a cultural and idea-related sense, it is a limitation.

In summary, this approach is misleading and can serve political or ideological ends. But that is not all. It is also potentially dangerous because we fail to test our ideas and assumptions.

After years of listening, I have great faith in the honest attempts of ABC staff, and Background Briefing staff in particular, to intelligently seek out a fair approximation to the truth. So this letter raises issues of balance in one program, but is not a general attack on BB or RN. Rather, it seeks to highlight the limited vision that affects out best efforts.

In a similar way, I hope the Board and management of the ABC are honest in their attempts to support effective, demanding, honest, truth-seeking broadcasting. Sadly, the indications, at least concerning the Board, seem to point in the other direction.

Yours sincerely

Terror to the left of us, terror to the right

I noticed a little article in the Canberra Times (22 Jan 2006, p.9) today reporting on the number of calls made to the National Security Hotline. The figures interested me. Apparently there have been 71,000 calls since the hotline was set up in 2002, of which Philip Ruddock says 37,000 were "useful". Ruddock told a Young Liberals conference that "the information had increased the authorities' understanding of the threats facing Australia" (quote from the article, not necessarily from PR).

It got me thinking. These seem pretty big numbers. Presumably, the hotline is like a call centre, and any really serious calls would be followed up by agents, and would not lead to further stats for the hotline. So, there will be some multiple calls, but not too many. I stand to be corrected on this - it's an assumption. And assuming each call is about one person (or group), and the call wasn't repeated, and also that there aren't multiple calls about one person (or group), that gives us one report for every 281 Australians, and an "interesting call" for every 540 Australians. One in 540 Australians a terrorist? That suggests there are 555 terrorists in Canberra. Wow.

Another way to look at it is with respect to the number of Australians arraigned on issues of terrorism. There were 14 arrested a few months ago, and I didn't think there were any others - at least not known to the public (it's quite possible that someone is taken by ASIO these days, and we would never know, as it's illegal for family or friends, even journalists, to announce it). So the figures are - 2,642 reports per terrorist. We must have a very observant population. Someone's obviously doing their share for me. Or maybe I'm being reported for this blog.

This is all based on some precarious assumptions, but the picture it gives of Australia is scary - we must be riddled with terrorists. I assume one day we will be bombed somewhere, but with so many evil ones amongst us, it should have happened numerous times already.

But then, maybe we're just riddled with fear, and it'll all be OK in the end.

Why would you have private ownership of a road?

I recently had an interesting discussion on PPPs and the newest (and most controversial) Sydney tunnel. It got me thinking about its implications for economics and politics. What are the issues to consider if we are honestly trying to be non-ideological in the discussion of privatised roads and PPPs? These appeared to me to be the issues requiring consideration.

Are there management benefits of running a road under private ownership? Is there any more involved than just letting a road sit there, be maintained, and collect tolls?

Can a road be seen as in competition with other roads (or means of transport)? And related, is competition a requirement to ensure public good is realised by private ownership. Are there such things as natural monopolies? Are natural monopolies recognised in our current view of modern economics, and, if so, how are they supposed to be managed?

[The new Sydney tunnel has seen associated road closures to support more tunnel use.] Government-owned roads could still be supported by closures of other roads, but would these decisions be made on just profit-related grounds, or additionally on other grounds, eg, equity, environmental, efficiency? (We can assume any concessions on roads originate from requests/demands by profit-seeking private owners).

Benefits from competition in construction and management are expected. A government can obtain these benefits while still owning the road.

Private ownership requires 1/ higher rates of interest on monies borrowed to build the road, and 2/ profit to the owner/shareholder. To what degree does this benefit the public? To what degree does this just transfer wealth? From whom to whom?

Tolls are user pay systems. User pays is to some degree a flat tax system, but it does support economic efficiency. Tolls can still be used on government-owned roads.

What benefit is there in removing a road from a government budget to the taxable, private economy? Is this a real-world benefit or a paper-based benefit (higher GDP etc), or a benefit at all?

To what degree do PPPs and private ownership of roads affect corruption? Does private ownership place roads outside political manipulation, corruption, etc? Alternatively, does the big money involved lead to other forms of corruption?

Who covers the risk? Is this maybe the major benefit from private ownership? If so, is it realised in general PPPs and in these contracts?

Is there ideology in Private-Public Partnerships, as displayed in road ownership issues? Is ideology evident in immediate decision making on specific cases? Probably not: it’s more likely just poor thinking in the development of specific contracts. More broadly, is ideology evident in the underlying assumption of the benefits or superiority of PPPs? This involves examination of the history of economic thinking on natural monopolies. We need an economic historian to judge this one.

Open letter to Larry Beinhart

Larry Beinhart is the author of a book I enjoyed immensely over the Christmas break. He invited emails, so I copy mine below as an open letter. Larry sent a quick and gracious reply, but I'll respect his privacy and not release it here. Larry is also the author of American hero, which became the wonderfully clever and black film, Wag the dog. He's also just written Fog facts : searching for truth in the land of spin, about the concept discussed in the letter below.

Larry

I’ve just read your book, The Librarian (Scribe, Carlton Nth, Victoria, 2004) You invite readers to email: “if you like the book and want to tell him so … email”. Well, I do (like the book) and I am (emailing).

Why do I like the book?

Partly because I too am a male librarian, so I can claim the central character as a role model … I am a male librarian. But really I jest.

Partly, because I discovered your book American Hero after seeing the film Wag the Dog and enjoyed it immensely and was informed by it. I’ve been recommending it regularly to friends ever since.

But I am informed by this book: this is why I write. I am interested in politics, somewhat so in US politics (we all have to be; we are all influenced by your overwhelming global power) but also by our national conservative politics, which is also triumphant, and busily cloning itself on US conservative models. You can see my occasional musings on my blog: http://aginspin.net

I learnt something that’s not new to me or to the world, but is new to me as an emotional or visceral understanding: that fiction can offer more understanding than fact, especially during times of spin and confusion. I learnt to think of possibilities as conceivable rather than just conspiratorial. Suddenly being aware of these more unlikely possibilities is a reasonable response. It’s interesting to me that this comes from the power of the fiction (even where the fiction is so closely related to reality as in both your novels). It allows the rationality of the conspiratorial to display itself, and make the logical possibility a real feasibility. It frees the mind to be creative in responding to limited facts. It allows the spun mind to be open to what may be happening. I like the result, so, thanks. It’s valuable work you are doing. I don’t want to sound like I am discarding rationality (I remain grounded in enlightenment rationality, scientific humanism and the like). But we are surrounded by spin, and misinformation, and conceiving the possible and the likely and the self-interest is helpful in determining just where to look for the facts. Excuse my lack of clarity, but I guess you see what I mean.

Perhaps we are seeing the high point of radical conservatism. I hope so, and others have been suggesting it recently. But I’m not too hopeful and I fear the possibilities of continuing on this path. We have seen fascism, nationalism, autocracy, and the like often enough in the last century. We pat ourselves on the back for defeating them, but that’s the direction we are headed in.

So I fear the worse, but then I’m not an optimistic type.

How to deal with it? I think you said it right: “It depends on you. Sorry about that. But it does” (p.431). So another revelation: individuals matter. But of course you have to get them to understand the importance of civil rights, good polity, etc, and not just be bought off by consumer comfort (which is nice enough too). It’s a matter of responsible citizenship. Demanding, yes; satisfying, also yes. Nothing new here to your noble American ideals, but, in practice, pretty much divorced from reality. Our British tradition is that we are subjects of the monarch, not citizens of a republic. It’s not so admirable, although perhaps as effective in practice.

Another new idea I liked was “Fog Facts”. Is that a term you use in the US? It’s not one I’ve heard, but the concept’s known well enough. We can know lots, if we just read or seek out the facts. But who has the time? Fog facts can appear after the event, but they are more interestingly, and frequently enough, found during it. The tale of WMD is a perfect example of Fog Facts, and we had a goodie here during a recent election campaign. You probably haven’t heard of it. Check it out if you wish to be exposed to excellence in government media manipulation (the Children Overboard affair during the 2001 Australian Federal Election). In my books, our Prime Minister John Howard is a political master well above the skill level of your current president. Just look at his comfortable place in politics (despite endless support for Bush and involvement in Iraq) compared with the messes George Bush and Tony Blair are in.

I’ve also discovered recently the importance of conversation. It’s a great test, but tests are not comfortable and they are often ignored. I’ve learnt it by sitting at work next to a politically-interested conservative, engaging in conversation, and having to justify to my own ideas. You discover that your own ideas can also be wooly and unsupported. It’s a valuable realisaton. It reminds me of that quote used by Jacob Bronowski in The Ascent of Man (as he steps into a creek outside Auschwitz; originally from William Blake?) “I beseach thee in, the bowels of God, think it possible you may be mistaken”. My version is prosaic: always test your ideas. There’s nothing new in all this, but a wise procedure none the less.

I’ll look forward to your next political thriller to help me further on this quest :->

Thanks again, and keep it up.

Eric