Rudd: Time for reality check
By BRUCE HAIGH
 AUSTRALIAN prime minister Kevin Rudd has done well in the United States.
He has come across as friendly, open, balanced, intelligent and articulate; the antithesis of his predecessor John Howard, who gave a very creditable impression of fawning every time he set foot in the US and whose public presentations sounded like a yard of pump water.
Rudd’s middle power statements and focus on the United Nations were timely and well overdue, but he should be on guard against the (Tony) Blair syndrome: the propensity to talk at length under water without delivering.
Not only is it annoying, it is dangerous, as expectations are raised which might not be fulfilled.
An impression conveyed of a polished and socially correct version of whatever it takes.
Rudd’s announcement that Australia would seek a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2013-14 was, in my opinion, precipitate.
The Howard government used up much international credit accumulated over the previous 30 years.
Fixed, as we are, on good news and praise, this reality has not been conveyed by public servants (who were fearful of the consequences of conveying bad news) and by the media who, by and large, wilted in front of Howard’s bullying.
There are good people of influence in many countries who are waiting to see how Australia will reposition itself and they will be guided by the substance of real achievement.
While there have been some welcome changes to bring Australia back into line on domestic and international law relating to refugees, 4,000 Australian islands remain excised from Australia including Christmas Island which houses a new and large refugee detention centre.
Australia maintains a policy of turning back refugee boats and continues an unhealthy relationship with Indonesia over the issue of refugees.
Rudd’s Sorry Statement (to the Indigenous community), while welcome, still needs the passage of time to demonstrate practical change and the restoration of fairness in the workplace has yet to take place, although no doubt it will.
Before rushing to announce his intention to seek a place on the Security Council, Rudd should have done some of the hard yards to restore Australia’s tarnished reputation in the world.
As a case in point, under Howard, Australia was one of a handful of countries to consistently vote with the US against Palestine.
If a UN vote was held this year to elect two non-permanent members to the Security Council, with Finland and Luxembourg already contenders, Australia would pick up no votes in Europe, particularly the Scandinavian countries after Tampa.
Australia would also pick up no votes in the Middle East and few if any in Africa.
Pressure and pressure alone might secure a couple of votes in the Pacific but India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar would not vote for Australia.
Pakistan would be hard to predict.
Sri Lanka, Thailand, South Korea and Brunei would probably vote for Australia and Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam might also but then again they might not.
The numbers are significantly against Australia.
A lot of work will need to be done to significantly rebuild respect for Australia.
Rudd rushed the gun in order to put some early substance in his middle power statement.
It was precipitate when set against the background of Australia’s current standing in the international community.
Rudd, more than Howard, should be aware that smiles and back slapping in public do not necessarily translate into nice words behind closed doors.
Rudd might look to practical measures to begin the process of international confidence building.
He might look to sponsoring and giving substance to a UN Institute on Water and Alternative Energy and a Regional Council on the treatment and elimination of AIDS, TB and malaria.
He should consider taking the issue of Afghanistan to the UN. The war is unwinnable.
Beyond the continued application of military force, the US has few proposals.
A middle power initiative could suggest talks with the Taliban through the UN.
Australia has mooted the possibility of Pakistan undertaking contact with the Taliban with the purpose of curtailing their activities across the border from safe havens in Pakistan into Afghanistan.
Pakistan is already engaged in contact with the Taliban, perhaps Australia might assist a process which brings this contact under the auspices of the UN.
Whether intended or not, Rudd sent quite a strong message to Japan by not including them on his extended overseas visit.
Whatever is said to the contrary, they are likely to believe it was deliberate.
They will not believe, along with the Indians, that a person of Rudd’s intelligence and background could have unwittingly delivered such a snub.
They are unlikely to believe that he acted without considered advice.
Under pressure, Rudd has now scheduled a visit to Japan in June.
However, the cold shoulder given Japan is not such a bad thing.
The relationship is basically sound and no great harm will come from it, but if handled properly, it might be used to indicate just how annoyed many people are in Australia over Japanese whaling activities in southern waters.
It is not so much the whaling, although that is bad enough, it has rather been the unwillingness on the part of the Japanese to negotiate and discuss that has stuck in the throat of many Australians.
It indicates a lack of respect and an arrogance that is not useful or constructive in any long term relationship, particularly when there are other friends in the neighbourhood. – onlineopinion

Note: Bruce Haigh is a retired Australian diplomat with 35 years experience in foreign policy and security analysis. He worked on Indonesian affairs and has written many articles, papers and a book on issues relating to Indonesia. He comments on international and domestic issues and farms olives and grapes at Mudgee, New South Wales.
 
Globalisation and the beautiful game
By DANI RODRIK
HOW does globalisation reshape wealth and opportunity around the world?
Is it mainly a force for good, enabling poor nations to lift themselves up from poverty by taking part in global markets?
Or does it create vast opportunities only for a small minority?
To answer these questions, look no farther than soccer.
Ever since European clubs loosened restrictions on the number of foreign players, the game has become truly global.
African players, in particular, have become ubiquitous, supplementing the usual retinue of Brazilians and Argentines.
Indeed, the foreign presence in soccer surpasses anything that we see in other areas of international commerce.
English Premier League club Arsenal, fields 11 starters who typically do not include a single British player.
Indeed, all the English players for the four English clubs that recently advanced to the final eight of the UEFA Champions’ League would hardly be enough to field a single team.
There is little doubt that foreign players enhance the quality of play in the European club championships.
Europe’s soccer scene would not be half as exciting without strikers such as Cote d’Ivoire’s Didier Drogba (Chelsea) or Cameroon’s Samuel Eto’o (Barcelona).
The benefits to African talent are easy to see, too.
African players are able to earn much more money by marketing their skills in Europe – not just the top clubs in the Premiership or the Spanish Primera Liga, but the countless nouveau-riche clubs in Russia, Ukraine, or Turkey.
To be sure, soccer players’ international mobility has increased the earnings gap between stars such as Drogba and Eto’o and their compatriots back home.
This is part and parcel of globalisation: enhanced global economic opportunities lead to wider disparities between those who have the skill or luck to take advantage of them and those who do not.
This kind of inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes some people better off without making others worse off.
But soccer enthusiasts care about country as well as club, and here the consequences of the global mobility of talent are not as straightforward.
Many fear that the quality of national teams is harmed by the availability of foreign players. Why invest in developing local talent if you can hire it from abroad?
England once again provides an apt illustration.
Many blame the country’s failure to qualify for this summer’s European championship on the preponderance of foreign players in English club teams.
The real lesson is that taking full advantage of globalisation requires developing domestic capabilities along with international links.
The benefits of globalisation come to those who do their homework. – Project Syndicate

Note: Dani Rodrik, Professor of Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, is the first recipient of the Social Science Research Council’s Albert O. Hirschman Prize. His latest book is One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalisation, Institutions, and Economic Growth.
Columns