Chairman Mao Zedong famously said that ‘political power grows out of the barrel of a gun’. Recent events have shown that China is more than willing to apply this dictum on the international stage. Abandoning ideas of a peaceful rise, it is beginning to flex its muscle in the shadows of a declining US Empire and extend its reach into a resource-rich region vital to its security.

Taming the Tiger: China’s Peaceful Rise

As China has begun to flex its economic muscle and presence on the world stage in the early 21^st century, the term ‘Peaceful rise’ has been used to describe its foreign policy by the current Chinese premier Wen Jiabao. This was derived from the idea that China’s prominence in military and economic matters would not threaten peace and stability in the region.

Instead, China emphasized the use of soft power, international free trade and cooperation in its foreign policy. This has been coupled with a belief by the West that China, like a tiger, could be tamed through economic partnership and global free trade. This would melt away old nationalist and communist grudges against the West, as well as Chinese territorial claims in the region.

___

“Abandoning ideas of a peaceful rise, it is beginning to flex its muscle in the shadows of a declining US Empire and extend its reach into a resource-rich region vital to its security.”

___

This principle of China’s ‘Peaceful rise’ was recently trumpeted during the Vice President of the United States Joe Biden’s visit to China. In reality, the visit was nothing more than a masquerade of camaraderie abound in empty diplomatic statements of ‘global stability’ and ‘partnership’.

However, it is clear that the US is now concerned with China’s military modernisation program and economic might, Now rising rapidly in the shadows of an economically ailing and militarily stretched US empire, China might be tempted to flex their muscle and stray from a ‘peaceful rise’ to power.

Tiger sharpens its teeth: China’s military might

A recent report by the U.S. Secretary of Defense to Congress has cited that China is slowly but surely preparing to take more aggressive measures in their foreign policy. In this report, the US warns that China’s military buildup is “potentially destabilizing” and that China has “closed key technological gaps”. It finds that China is well on its way to forging a modern military by 2020, a build-up that could destabilise the Asia-Pacific region and lead to possible conflict in the future.

More distressingly, the report noted that the buildup in China’s military was to prevent US intervention in any conflict with Taiwan. “Beijing is developing capabilities intended to deter, delay, or deny possible US support for the island in the event of conflict,” the report said. This military buildup is seen in the launch of China’s first aircraft carrier and the testing of its stealth J20 jet fighters, symbolizing its intent to become a maritime force capable of projecting its power across the world’s seas.

Although the criticism of China’s military program by the US seems a tad hypocritical by a country whose defense expenditure totaled $700bn in 2010, a case of ‘Do as I say not as I do’, China’s increasing military modernization and defense budget, which has more than doubled since 2006, suggests that the military balance of power may be beginning to shift towards China.

‘China’s lake’: regional ascendancy

China has denounced this report by the US as “exaggerated” and “cock and bull”. Yet there is no denying that this military buildup is aimed at giving China the upper-hand in its region, including territorial spats with Taiwan, Vietnam the Philippines.

Side-lining Taiwan for a moment, these territorial spats are also concerned with shipping lanes in the South China Sea and conflicting claims over small islands, which hold an abundance of natural resources like oil and gas. For a region which is known by Chinese authorities as ‘China’s lake’, there is no mistaking that China is ready to stamp its authority as a regional hegemon and secure energy resources in the South China sea.

Its modernisation program means that it may be more likely to resort to aggressive military means than in the past, especially when it comes to securing vital energy resources. As noted by the official news agency Xinhua, its modernizing military program represents the “inevitable choice for the country to safeguard its increasingly globalized national interests”.

Conclusion: The West peeping through its fingers

It must be said that the issue is not a simple one, on one hand China, an increasing global power reserves the right to develop its military and protect its national interests. On the other hand, China’s military advancements are a worrying sign in a region beset by tension. The U.S. seems to be now peeping through their fingers at a tiger sharpening its teeth.

With so much of the global political discourse during this post 9/11 decade invoking the challenges of cultural and religious difference between America and Islam, one could be forgiven for thinking that we are experiencing a ‘Clash of Civilisations’, as Samuel Huntington predicted in his Foreign Affairs article from 1993. However, to accept such an explanation for the events of the 9/11 decade would be to severely oversimplify our complex world by exaggerating the strength of cultural ties while naively ignoring the power play and material interests that drive foreign affairs.

What such a ‘clash’ would first require is agreement by people belonging to the same civilisation about what is worth defending and what is not, and about whom its friends and enemies are. But, as we can see through the divisive debates in the US, this is not the case. Opinion polls taken throughout the Iraq war showed that support among the American public was split nearly fifty-fifty, a trend replicated in other Western nations. Such divisions regarding the legitimacy of the war even among populations with supposed ‘civilisation commonality’, which Huntington claimed is the principal basis for cooperation, evidence his over-generalisation of global patterns of alliance and conflict.

___

“To say that the quest for cultural supremacy is the first and foremost motivator in foreign affairs would be to relegate all other drivers.”

___

What is worth noting is that policies regarding conflict are made by a small group of decision-makers whose rhetoric and motives cannot be taken as representative of that entire ‘civilisation’, supposing such groupings exist. It must not be forgotten that leaders inevitably face opposition from large sections of their society on such issues – and when only half of the civilisation pursues war against another civilisation, it is less a clash of civilisations than a clash of interests.

To say that the quest for cultural supremacy is the first and foremost motivator in foreign affairs would be to relegate all other drivers of international relations to a lesser position, while experience tells us that the defence and promotion of cultural ideals are often the cover under which decision makers pursue interests of a more realpolitik nature.

This takes us back to the example of the Iraq War. The war, according to George Bush himself, was “to defend the world from grave danger” against “an enemy that has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality”. The was also  plenty of talk about spreading democracy and freedom. At the time, it seemed to suggest some form of civilisation clash, in that the US was attempting to impose its own values onto another culture; however, as it later turned out, it was oil interests that drove the decision. Huntington did get one thing right – cultural values for many are the most fundamental of all values, but this only makes their invocation the perfect tool for leaders to arouse public support for policies and campaigns with more materialistic agendas.

The primacy of these material interests in driving foreign affairs should not be underestimated. This again surfaces in the US’s formation of close military ties with Azerbaijan, a Muslim nation whose government subscribes to very different views on what the US may regard as fundamental issues, such as freedom of speech and human rights. If you apply Huntington’s theory then they appear doomed to clash, but Azerbaijan’s status as a littoral state of the Caspian Basin, a known oil reserve, presents economic and strategic interests which have overridden these apparent incompatibilities and become the basis for their cooperation. For another example, try Saudi Arabia.

Even taking the spotlight off its oil interests, a look at other aspects of America’s foreign affairs easily disproves the idea that it is driven by a clash of civilisations. In the East Asia region, the US has and continues to hold deep diplomatic and military ties to Japan and South Korea, as well as working hard to re-build those with Vietnam and the Philippines, which in recent years has become more crucial as it tries to limit China’s naval expansion and influence in the region. Should any conflict arise in, for example, the South China Sea, the patterns of alliance arguably would not be based on civilisation commonality as Huntington suggests. Rather, the geopolitical incentives for containing China’s influence and prevent a stranglehold on the oil reserves will likely see Vietnam and the Philippines joining in an alliance with the US against their civilisational peer. Clearly, material interests and balance of power considerations are more important determinants of global foreign policy.

If this post-9/11 decade really was a ‘Clash of Civilisations’, then we would be seeing strong, cohesive nationalist movements in the US and around the world, as well as alliance patterns falling neatly into civilisation fault lines. But what we do have are divided societies where national purpose remains contested and alliance patterns that more strongly reflect geopolitical interests. As Noam Chomsky once noted, “there is no clash of civilisations; these are just standard policies of powerful states pursuing interests.”

For many, the very words “Trinidad and Tobago” conjure up images of azure skies, crystal-clear waters, sun-kissed beaches and the sounds of the Caribbean’s most exuberant carnival. Sadly, the islands are currently not quite so idyllic. Trinidad and Tobago is experiencing a difficult time – so much so that, since the summer of 2011, the country has been under a state of emergency.

Following a concentrated spate of murders in Trinidad and Tobago during which 11 people were killed in 48 hours, President George Maxwell Richards declared a State of Emergency (SOE) on Sunday August 21, 2011. For several days afterwards, there was considerable confusion as to whether the SOE applied to the entire country. This confusion was exacerbated by the fact that a subsequent Curfew Order was meant to apply only to specified ‘hot spots’. As if a 9.00pm – 5.00am curfew were not serious enough, information has subsequently emerged that elucidates the disorder enveloping a decision meant to bring about order. At the point when the decision to act was taken, Commissioner of Police Dwayne Gibbs was in Brazil. This came as a surprise to the Police Service Board, whom Commissioner Gibbs is required to notify if he intends to travel abroad. Coincidentally, the Deputy Commissioner was also overseas at the time. President Richards was thus presented with a fait accompli and had no choice but to sign the Proclamation and Emergency Powers Regulations 2011 that gave effect to the SOE, which had already been put into place for 15 days on the orders of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

The exact reason for the Government’s current actions is still conjecturable. Drug-smuggling, money laundering, gang culture and corruption at the highest levels have gnawed at the islands for years. The current government is adamant that the decision it has taken is for the good of all law-abiding citizens. The country’s High Commissioner in London, Garvin Nicholas, has been robust in his defence of the decisions made by the People’s Partnership coalition, which has headed the Government in Port of Spain since May 2010: “We are endeavouring to tackle a man-made disaster and we will employ all the necessary forces to deal with those criminal elements threatening our society.” Additionally, Nicholas has been keen to make clear where he believes the blame lies, saying, “Our Government is determined to address the problems allowed to grow under the previous administration …We are committed to investing in the police, in youth recreation programmes and play areas and in tacking crime … It is our intention to go after the minions of gang leaders, if you deal with them the gang leaders can no longer operate.” Such sophistry seems somewhat at odds with the line taken by the Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, who has made it clear that the “big fish” are definitely in the Government’s sights.

___

“Drug-smuggling, money laundering, gang culture and corruption at the highest levels have gnawed at the islands for years.”

___

Although the Government of Trinidad and Tobago may wish to appear tough on crime, there are those within its ranks who might not fully subscribe to its rhetoric. The sudden spike in killings was not the only reason why a State of Emergency was called. During the days leading up to the decision, two shipping containers were unloaded and discovered in Port of Spain. Both containers were found crammed with weapons and ammunition. Whilst being guarded by three police officers and five army personnel, one container went missing. Senior military sources have confirmed that CCTV footage is currently being examined in the hunt to apprehend the culprits and recapture the armaments. Such a brazen act, while bordering on the farcical, is a sinister reminder of the previous State of Emergency 21 years ago when there was an attempted coup.

Mrs Persad-Bissessar has defended the draconian stance taken by her government, claiming “Make no mistake about it. This Government will remove lawlessness at every level from the society.” For those at the very heart of the current Government, such posturing is seriously undermined by a moral malaise that seems in danger of undermining the Administration at nearly every turn. The usually ebullient, genial and ever-artful Austin “Jack” Warner of FIFA fame may be endeavouring to keep a somewhat lower profile of late, but he remains firmly in control of the Ministry of Works and Infrastructure – a ministerial portfolio with possibly the largest budget and greatest scope for corruption. Whilst ‘Teflon’ Jack is no longer a big shot at FIFA, he certainly wields enormous influence in the Caribbean. Warner effectively bankrolled the United National Congress (the largest partner in the Coalition) in the two most recent elections and smoothed their path to victory last year. Now that it has been over a year into the incumbent Administration, he may be wishing for a return on his “investment”. Among his other dealings, mystery surrounds the financial statements for the Warner-owned Emerald Plaza Hotel at St Augustine, which invariably remain very healthy even though the hotel rarely ever sees more than a handful of guests. Some have suggested that Warner has perfected the art of alchemy, managing to turn base metal or another substance into gold (or Trinidad and Tobago Dollars). Ever the workaholic, the wealth of evidence he is believed to have amassed on his colleagues will undoubtedly prove a handy ‘insurance policy’ in these turbulent times.

If the Government is intent on rooting out “lawlessness” and has its heart set on a moral crusade, it must surely begin with those the Government selects to serve in positions of high office. For a country that already has the dubious privilege of being a key route for the transnational shipment of narcotics, its notoriety was further cemented by the appointment of Anil Roberts as Minister of Sport, an individual who has been waging a losing battle with cocaine addiction for some time. Roberts undoubtedly feels quite safe for now, at least with the patronage of a bibulous Prime Minister whose alleged recreational activities include hosting increasingly audacious ‘bunga bunga’ parties in Government buildings with hired caterers and escorts. Whilst strenuous efforts are being made to keep the Prime Minister’s drinking and immorality out of the public eye, such misconduct raises serious questions about her judgement and the fact that much of what is going is being paid for by the public purse.  Such activity makes individuals far more susceptible to blackmail and to being targeted by the ‘big fish’ eager to ensure that they remain untouchable. Although the Government seeks to portray itself as a rainbow coalition, there is already bubbling discontent over the Indianisation of many ministries, which unpleasantly resembles a similar situation in Guyana that has caused much tension over the years.  While the Augean stables remain uncleansed, the earnest endeavours of statesmen such as Winston Dookeran, Minister of Finance and former Governor of the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, will go largely unnoticed. The fact that so few individuals have managed to resist corruption appears to be a damning indictment of the current political elite.

For those having to endure the SOE, which has already been extended until the end of November, legitimate concerns exist. Big businesses have the connections, reserves and extensive portfolios to weather a drop in income over several weeks or possibly months. Conversely, for the small outlets, clubs, bars, restaurants, taxi drivers, street vendors and those who normally work or have to travel during curfew hours, this is a time of considerable hardship. Should the current situation persist, there is a very real chance that some law-abiding citizens will be driven to crime as a direct consequence of the state’s actions. Economic belt-tightening has seen a raft of social programmes slashed by the current Government, including those related to Special Education and counselling for adults infected with HIV. The police, Public Service Association and other government employees have been threatening strike action for a while, and for the time being at least, the SOE staves off that particular problem.

The current government has been eager to tackle the issue of crime, and has used its substantial parliamentary majority to successfully pass an Anti-Gang Bill (2010). It is worth noting that a range of human rights concerns raised by Amnesty International in a 2011 report on Trinidad and Tobago have largely been dismissed by the current administration. The issue of excessive use of police force gives further cause for concern, as the SOE removes important protective legal measures. Rounding up known criminal elements or the ‘usual suspects’ might play well to the public, but could result in further injustices. As for the curfew, statistics already show that a very high percentage of murders in the islands take place during the day. Some people, while happy to see a no-nonsense approach taken towards crime, fear that a government under pressure over its handling of the SOE will seek to ‘play the terrorism card’ in order to excuse its actions and bolster its position.

Mark T Jones – London-based journalist and writer on international affairs

Climate change is one of the pivotal themes of modern international politics. Its innately global nature, however, does not exclude the prevalence of states in the negotiating room. Instead, nationalism is deeply embedded within the arduous and extensive discussions and operates as a deterrent upon consensus. Global warming is directly linked to industrialisation – involving markets, businesses, consumers, the rich and the poor – which create numerous barriers when politicians seek to resolve these issues.

The Copenhagen Climate Summit in December 2009 exposed these barriers and revealed how tensions mount between stakeholders when a universal dilemma is addressed by individual states. Despite reiterations of ‘mutual gains’ and ‘global co-operation’, Copenhagen provided an example of how the key actor in global governance is persistently the state. Above others, states continue to hold the highest levels of power and legitimacy, both of which are necessary to effectively address such a large scale issue. At Copenhagen, it was the complex and convoluted processes operating both within and between states that hindered progress and resulted in limited agreement.

In order to see how climate change might be addressed in the future, the reasons why the Summit was unsuccessful need to be understood. Why did Copenhagen fail to achieve its aim to ‘seal the deal’ outlined in Kyoto? There are three structural levels involving the state that we can identify: first, the relationship within states and how domestic political and economic pressures impact upon diplomats. Secondly, the relationship between states and how the anarchic structure of the international sphere can lead to power disparities and disunity. Finally, through a constructivist lens, the considerable influence of norms upon states. This point will stress the significance of the 24/7 news culture that surrounded the event and how states pursue discursive power through media representation.

Domestic Prohibitions: Putnam’s Two-Level Game

The influence of the national upon the international is key to deconstructing the lack of success at Copenhagen. When international negotiations take place, there are two processes that must occur in order to reach consensus. It is assumed that representatives will collaborate and refine a new treaty or accord until satisfied, but it is often taken for granted that this policy will be implemented domestically. In reality, politicians must persuade their domestic constituencies of the policy’s merits before those international agreements can be ratified domestically. Realists know this as the Two-Level Game Theory, whereby the success of a conference is measured by its realisation, or rejection, back home.

___

“Perceptions of what was taking place at Copenhagen became more important than the event itself.”

___

At a sub-state level the U.S has developed two methods of exerting influence on her international representatives.  The first are political measures, which during the Copenhagen talks included Congress, the Chamber of Commerce, and anxieties about re-election. Above and beyond this, an array of stakeholders including Environmental Non-Government Organisations (ENGOs), Business and Industry Non-Government Organisations (BINGOs), Inter-Government Organisations (IGOs), regular Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and Individuals comprise a diverse vocal category applying pressure on representatives. President Obama and the U.S. delegation were thus undeniably subject to several complex strains on their win-sets when viewed in light of the two-level game theory.

As The Guardian and many other critics agreed, the U.S. was central to the failures of Copenhagen, reporting that for Obama, ‘pushing a strong climate program through the senate, many of whose members are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the energy industry, would have been the political battle of his life’. On top of these political inhibitors, Obama was also subject to economic pressures. Lobbying is often employed by TNCs, MNCs and large domestic firms alike, while corporate anti-legislation campaigning and party financing contribute to a vocal market whose perspective is disproportionately represented.

Historically Inopportune

The timing of the Summit could not have been more inopportune. In the wake of the GFC, the environmental agenda has been pushed to the backburner and viewed as not nearly as imminent as the desire to kick-start a flailing world economy. Such global catastrophe’s inevitably dissolve opportunity for international co-operation and find poor and rich nations alike looking inward, making the suggestion from Greenpeace for developed nations to donate $140 billion per year to developing states in order to help ‘even the playing field’ decidedly unrealistic.

In a similar vein, China’s economic growth is based largely on importing cheap coal and its recent upshot into world economic heavyweight status, through rapid industrialisation, is seen by the Chinese as historically entitled, much like the British, European or American industrial processes during the turn of the twentieth century. This fosters resentment between the main stakeholders present, building tension between environmental and economic sustainability, exacerbated by the U.S. struggle in the Two-Level Game.

The Blame-Game: The Tragedy of Common Governance

Moving beyond the domestic and focusing purely on international affairs, another obstacle facing foreign diplomats is the complex and often quietly hostile relationship between nation states. From a realist perspective, competing self-interests and superficial partnerships make bargaining inevitable. At Copenhagen this involved “burden sharing”, power relations and complex interdependence emerging from regional and economic links. Combined with this, there were numerous divisions between developed and developing nations with different models of the market. These divisions hindered reaching a legally binding agreement rather than the modest accord that eventuated.

The negative consequences of the balance of power between developed and developing states is manifested in the attitudes of NGOs like Friends of the Earth International who asserted: ‘rich countries (at Copenhagen) have bullied developing nations’. China and India believe, for example, ‘that it is the responsibility of wealthy industrialized nations like the U.K and U.S to set a clear example on cutting carbon emissions’; meanwhile, these nations were inclined to interject that China is now the world’s largest producer of CO₂ and as such, leadership falls in their lap. In a “blame game” atmosphere, with no central authority to override competing arguments, it is little wonder that the accord was contested and that its objectives were uninspired.

Production and supply chains are also key factors complicating the “blame game”. Who is responsible for the factories in China that require vast amounts of energy and that produce vast amounts of CO₂? American outsourcing provides yet another example of how the concept of ownership and single state responsibility further exhausts prospects of progress. Finally, regional or ideological groupings such as the EU, the BRICS or Obama’s conference with France, Germany, Ethiopia and Bangladesh fuelled competing interests and brought out contradictory methods of addressing the issue, which steered the summit away from consensus.  These factors distort and distract from the real issue and, as Ben Pile puts it, ‘Copenhagen’s failure is the culmination of long-standing political incoherence.’

A Crisis of Legitimacy?

Since the birth of capitalism, the question of state interventionism has been debated. From the rise of the Multinational Corporation, some have questioned if states really are the key actors in global governance. This debate about state power in relation to markets and corporations has caused governments to exploit opportunities to re-exert their status. As such, Pile suggests that Copenhagen can be construed as an instance where states used the environmental crisis ‘to rescue themselves from their own crisis of legitimacy’.

In a century of globalisation, power relies on constructing a particular image through media representation that is in line with, and reflects, social norms and public expectations. But while transnational public opinion does provide an overarching structure through which we may judge foreign relations, it is also true that in a world where public opinion weighs in on all decision-making, it is also widely manipulated.

Perhaps the 192 countries that attended the Summit did so because they agree that climate change is a genuine concern to modern society. However, it was through the round-the-clock media surrounding the event that their ‘concern’ could be publicised and consequently these states could be perceived as humanitarian actors taking action against global warming, regardless of the end result.

___

“Production and supply chains are also key factors complicating the ‘blame game’.”

___

Adopting a constructivist lens, national identity and reputation are highly significant and useful in explaining the political incoherency between states. In order to gain discursive power, states must demonstrate how their foreign policy is guided by ethical standards. The desire to not lose face produced high expectations that put Copenhagen straight under the spotlight and pushed the real negotiations behind closed doors.

In many ways, perceptions of what was taking place at Copenhagen became more important than the event itself.

The politics of environmental change becomes stigmatised through the media and TNCs play a big role in facilitating this. They engage in “re-branding” by sponsoring environmental and conservation groups and consequently gain a greener image. Shell and BP for instance, find new ways to disguise themselves and keep their interests at the fore by financing Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy respectively. The Nation’s critique seems fair: ‘are these conservation groups at all? They look much more like industry front groups’.

Nnimmo Bassey from Friends of the Earth encapsulated the success of Copenhagen as an ‘accord [that] is not legally binding, it’s a political statement’. After taking into consideration the fundamental ways in which relationships within, between and upon states influence motivations and outcomes, it is not surprising that the Copenhagen accord was limited and did not bring consensus. Domestic pressures, a lack of global governance and the mediatisation of the event resulted in barriers and blockages, and ultimately hindered any progressive action.

Rather than outlining firm objectives that would result in a radical re-design of the global environment agenda, the Summit and the resulting accord instead became a political statement demonstrating that while the world recognises the need for action, something, somewhere, by someone still needs to be done.

Throughout history there have been unipolar periods where superpowers have dominated world affairs. First there was the Pax Romana, the European peace under the Roman Empire. Then came the Pax Britannia, when Britain ruled the largest empire in history. Today we live in the relative stability of the Pax Americana, protected by U.S. dominance.

During these times of peace there has been an expansion of trade and cultural exchange. Today we call this phenomenon globalisation, and though the debate rages on as to the benefits of globalisation, few in the developed world could argue that the relative peace under the American superpower has been unpleasant. But a superpower and its allies must be willing to adapt to face new threats, and today the greatest threat is oil dependence.

___

“The current era of globalisation is under threat.”

___

Australia is a beneficiary of American dominance. Our alliance with the United States has made us safe and given us access to a global market to sell our oil, coal and uranium. Australia’s predominantly secular, multicultural society has given her an edge in establishing a knowledge economy, which will be invaluable after Australia’s exportable resources run out.

Globalisation under the Pax Americana has greatly contributed to our current way of life. According to the UN’s Human Development Index, Australia resides in the top three nations on earth for literacy, life expectancy and GDP per capita. One could argue that globalisation has therefore made Australians healthy, wealthy and wise.

However, the current era of globalisation is under threat. Not by the GFC or the “rise of China”, but by the price of energy – particularly oil. The world as a whole uses six barrels of oil for every new barrel extracted from the ground. Oil production is peaking in many nations, meaning that production is no longer meeting domestic demand. This means more and more nations depend on imported oil from the few remaining nations that are still exporting.

As the entire global trade network is reliant on oil for energy, the cost of transporting anything has risen and thus the cost of imported goods such as food is rising. In less developed nations, such as Burma and Pakistan, this has already resulted in food riots as people simply cannot afford to eat.

Higher oil prices have obvious security implications for the great powers that are dependent on imported oil. America is notorious for its oil dependence, but few think of China as being in the same league. We must not forget that the U.S. still produces much of its own oil, even though production peaked in the 1970s. America’s oil dependence is mostly a product of its high consumption, not poor production. China, on the other hand, has far less domestic production and a growing demand for oil as its economy grows. While America could theoretically ration its oil supplies for a period of time, China lacks such a contingency. Therefore, China is even more oil dependent than the U.S.

Australia’s own oil production peaked in around 2004, meaning we now need foreign oil to meet our demand. This effectively puts us in the same boat as China and the United States. It puts our economy at risk as our exports become more expensive, and it threatens our security should China and America begin overtly to compete for the remaining oil supplies.

But there are greater things at stake than our economy and our security. The spirit of globalisation is under threat, along with peaceful international diplomatic and economic relations. International flights will become more expensive and people will travel less. People will become less connected; networks will begin to focus on the local and the national rather than the regional or the global. China and America will be weakened by their oil dependence and the world of power relations will become relatively flat.

History has not been a simple case of a new superpower cleanly replacing the last. Between the Roman and British empires there were the Dark Ages, and between the British and American empires there were two world wars. The multipolar moments of history have been fuelled by nationalism and an unfortunate product has been bloodshed.

The energy crisis is the greatest threat to humanity’s ability to co-operate on a global scale. Every government in every developed nation should be turning its collective resources towards independence from oil: massive investment in renewable energy, taxes on petrol, subsidies for electric and hybrid vehicles. Every option should be exhausted in the name of preserving the current state of globalisation, as the alternative is unlikely to be either peaceful or beneficial. The longer globalisation continues, the more interdependent we will become, and perhaps one day we won’t need a superpower to keep us from turning on each other.

The transition from oil will no doubt be painful, but any society must be willing to experience some discomfort in order to adapt, survive and prosper.

BIG DEAL – By Justin Penafiel

These days, less and less people remember the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Yet, on May 2, we were there for the ultimate demise of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, his demise is the Berlin Wall of our times. To suggest otherwise would be to dismiss the Berlin Wall as but another man-made structure, or bin Laden as just any other old geezer.

Never mind that bin Laden was found in a fortified residence in the aptly-named Abbottabad in Pakistan, rather than some cave in Afghanistan (because people like Osama could have only possibly lived in caves, right?). If even George W. Bush can bring himself to congratulate Barack Obama for doing what he could never do, so can we. Yes, yes we can.

That is not to deny that the war in terror was a foil in the struggle to track down bin Laden, after all. But in focusing on the fact that looking in caves and bombing Iraq was all in vain, we fail to comprehend and even appreciate the sheer awesomeness of America’s efforts under Obama to take down ‘Public Enemy Number One’. It was achieved completely under the radar, incognito, and without their closest allies ever knowing until Obama’s fateful and awe-inspiring announcement. Let’s not take this achievement away from the CIA and U.S. military, because they sorely needed it.

Many small-l liberals bemoan the lost opportunities to reassert some lofty, but nebulous ideals of the rule of law and presumption of innocence until proven guilty, that were thrown out with bin Laden’s body in the Arabian Sea. I know I do. But let’s not kid ourselves – the bin Laden trials were never going to see the light of day, let alone the pages of law school textbooks. This was Barack Obama’s moment and the accompanying boost in the polls is perhaps deserving of his perseverance.

Bin Laden, as a guerilla, may have been one of many, and he certainly did not define the Muslim world. Yet, the commemorations and celebrations there were of him are indicative of the cult of celebrity that surrounded bin Laden in his quest to define the Muslim world and its relations with the West.

In all the media and hype that surrounded bin Laden, the scale and history of his influence is often forgotten. It is easy to forget he was one of Saudi’s richest sons. As the mastermind behind al-Qaeda, bin Laden transformed the organisation into a well funded, transnational operation that stretched from the Middle East and Africa to the Far East and the United States itself. The sheer spectacle of September 11 and his subsequent pursuit wiped away the world’s memories of the decade of plane hijackings and bombing of embassies, train stations and public markets. Fewer still recall bin Laden’s nearly successful plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II in Manila in 1995. From the comfort of our distant Australian homes, where we have only ever needed to be alert but not alarmed, it was all too easy to forget the real, omnipresent threat posed by bin Laden’s transnational presence to the peace and security of the rest of the world.

NO DEAL – By Preethi Sundaram

It has been stated, “if Osama bin Laden didn’t exist, it would be necessary to manufacture him.”

After masterminding the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, bin Laden quickly assumed the mantle of ‘Public Enemy Number One’ by the United States. This was a title he happily adopted, but as the quote suggests, one he hardly deserved.

The War on Terror was a war the world had never seen before. It was the first in which an enemy, Al Qaeda, could no longer be clearly identified. What exactly were people fighting against? What exactly constituted ‘terror’?

Osama bin Laden filled this information void. George W. Bush promised in 2001 that Osama bin Laden would be captured to avenge those that died in the attacks on United States soil. This was presumably a satisfying response, as it would put an end to ‘terror’ – as though Osama bin Laden had some kind of monopoly on all terrorist activity.

In reality, Al Qaeda is a fragmented entity.  In some ways, it is almost a franchise, where anyone is free to use the name to commit acts of violence under the broad banner of Sunni Islamism. Osama bin Laden repeated claimed to be acting in defence of all Islamic people. In the end, his popularity was never as widespread as he assumed it to be. In most instances, the majority of his victims were the innocent Muslims who he purported to defend. Instead, his idea of an Islamic state – a caliphate of sorts – was soundly being rejected by millions of Muslims who had other ideas.

The Arab Spring arrived in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya as dictators are being thrown out one by one. Freedom, democracy and transparency are being demanded all over the Middle East, by Arabs who are willing to risk their lives in a way that they never would have for bin Laden’s obsolete ideologies. Osama bin Laden’s visions never found a place in the minds of those whose support he needed to continue his violent ways. In reality he was killed by the Arabs long before the Americans got him in Pakistan.

Instead his name was used to con a grieving people to comply with two invasions in the name of justice. A decade on, the objective of the original mission has finally been achieved by another President forced to adopt this war as his own, in another country. Ten years have seen the invasions of two countries and the deaths of countless innocent civilians. Osama bin Laden’s death won’t change the state of the countries that U.S. foreign policy destroyed in their mission.

It won’t cripple the decentralised command of al-Qaeda and it won’t end terrorist attacks. As this is being written revenge attacks are being plotted and executed in Pakistan. The United States’ budget will remain in a woeful state with domestic health care and education still in desperate need.

In the end Osama bin Laden was a caricature – a man with an obsolete ideology who fooled a superpower for a decade because they let him. He led the United States on a wild goose chase, stampeding through the Middle East where their tunnel vision blinded them to the seeds of democracy that were already in place.

BIG DEAL – By Justin Penafiel
These days, less and less people remember the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Yet, on May 2, we were there for the ultimate demise of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, his demise is the Berlin Wall of our times. To suggest otherwise would be to dismiss the Berlin Wall as but another man-made structure, or bin Laden as just any other old geezer.
Never mind that bin Laden was found in a fortified residence in the aptly-named Abbottabad in Pakistan, rather than some cave in Afghanistan (because people like Osama could have only possibly lived in caves, right?). If even George W. Bush can bring himself to congratulate Barack Obama for doing what he could never do, so can we. Yes, yes we can.
That is not to deny that the war in terror was a foil in the struggle to track down bin Laden, after all. But in focusing on the fact that looking in caves and bombing Iraq was all in vain, we fail to comprehend and even appreciate the sheer awesomeness of America’s efforts under Obama to take down ‘Public Enemy Number One’. It was achieved completely under the radar, incognito, and without their closest allies ever knowing until Obama’s fateful and awe-inspiring announcement. Let’s not take this achievement away from the CIA and U.S. military, because they sorely needed it.
Many small-l liberals bemoan the lost opportunities to reassert some lofty, but nebulous ideals of the rule of law and presumption of innocence until proven guilty, that were thrown out with bin Laden’s body in the Arabian Sea. I know I do. But let’s not kid ourselves – the bin Laden trials were never going to see the light of day, let alone the pages of law school textbooks. This was Barack Obama’s moment and the accompanying boost in the polls is perhaps deserving of his perseverance.
Bin Laden, as a guerilla, may have been one of many, and he certainly did not define the Muslim world. Yet, the commemorations and celebrations there were of him are indicative of the cult of celebrity that surrounded bin Laden in his quest to define the Muslim world and its relations with the West.
In all the media and hype that surrounded bin Laden, the scale and history of his influence is often forgotten. It is easy to forget he was one of Saudi’s richest sons. As the mastermind behind al-Qaeda, bin Laden transformed the organisation into a well funded, transnational operation that stretched from the Middle East and Africa to the Far East and the United States itself. The sheer spectacle of September 11 and his subsequent pursuit wiped away the world’s memories of the decade of plane hijackings and bombing of embassies, train stations and public markets. Fewer still recall bin Laden’s nearly successful plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II in Manila in 1995. From the comfort of our distant Australian homes, where we have only ever needed to be alert but not alarmed, it was all too easy to forget the real, omnipresent threat posed by bin Laden’s transnational presence to the peace and security of the rest of the world.

Most people will never meet someone who works as a professional environmental activist. It’s no surprise then that the commonly held view is often skewed by outdated stereotypes. Are they really dirty hippies or tree hugging radicals? I’ve been traveling around the world talking to green workers to find out. Here’s a snippet of what Ian Singleton, director of conservation of Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari (YEL), gets up to.

1. What is YEL and how did it start?

YEL is an Indonesian NGO with the aim to promote more sustainable use of natural resources in northern Sumatra. One of its main focuses, however, is the Sumatran orangutan and its habitat, the tropical forests of North Sumatra and Aceh Provinces…

2. What programs are you running at the moment?

YEL runs a range of projects dealing the problem of illegal ‘pet’ Sumatran orangutans and how to rehabilitate and release them into the wild. It also runs a number of habitat protection and conservation projects, education and advocacy projects as well as undertaking research on the behaviour and ecology of the few remaining wild Sumaran organgutans.

Additionally, YEL is also active in promoting sustainable development, in particular agriculture – running a sort of model farm that is used by local farmers to develop new concepts and ideas and to test them before applying them on their own farms. It therefore functions both as useable farm and as an education and training centre.

YEL and PanEco also work to promote sustainable ‘ecotourism’ in the region. YEL manages its own ‘ecolodge’ in the town of Bukit Lawang, at the edge of the Gunungleuser National Park, and operates with other partners and elephant trekking programme, in which tourists can spend 3 days traveling through the forest on elephant back.

3. What do you think the biggest environmental problems are right now in Indonesia?

By far the most serious crisis is the wholesale conversion of rainforests to plantations. Illegal logging remains a problem, but if only selected trees are removed there is still a chance for forests to regenerate naturally, but if the forests are removed totally, as still regularly occurs to establish palm oil plantations or Acacia plantations to supply the paper and pulp industry, the forests and their wildlife are lost forever. This is also a concern when large scale mining operations are developed too, but by far the most forest loss is a direct result of the expansion of plantations.

Logging also has serious for climate change. Indonesia is the world’s third largest emitter of carbon dioxide, after the USA and China, despite not being considered an industrialised nation. Indonesia’s carbon emissions instead come from the destruction of the forests, which naturally store carbon in peat swamps. Peat is essentially organic matter stored over tens of thousands of years as it does not decompose in the water logged swamp conditions. Once the forests in these areas are cleared, all of the above ground carbon is lost to the atmosphere. Plantations then establish drainage canals, and dry out the upper layers of the peat, which then oxidises in the air and releases huge amounts of carbon. It then also subsides, meaning the drainage canals must be continuously deepened, until all the peat is eventually destroyed.

4. How do you think some of these problems can be solved?

Much hope has been pinned in recent years on the concept of REDD (United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation). REDD aims to cut carbon emissions into the atmosphere by restricting deforestation and the destruction of peatlands. But it aims to do this by allowing developed countries can pay developing countries to preserve forest in exchange for carbon credits. The idea is to develop an ongoing alternative income for communities who would otherwise be reliant on logging and palm oil, while also funding a variety of conservation programs.

To YEL, the misuse and abuse of information by vested interests, often major plantation companies and local governments, coupled with the high levels of corruption still prevalent in the country mean that REDD is not the beacon of hope it could be.

5. Do you feel hopeful about the future? Why or why not?

“Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are certainly reasons to be optimistic”.

In this age of technology and rapid advances in communication and data sharing, companies and governments are beginning to realise that they cannot carry on as before. Free flow of information is making it harder for companies to hide their destructive practices and infringements of the law.

YEL shares the same problem as many green NGOs around the world – “the lack of accountability and effective law enforcement.” Over 2800 individuals have been involved in illegally buying pet orangutans, yet not a single one has been prosecuted in Indonesia – with no legal ramifications in place, how is the species to survive? In Indonesia, there is a similar situation with major companies. Many of them are so large and so powerful, wielding considerable political influence both in Indonesia and abroad, and so skilled at hiding behind smaller, more visible companies, that they are virtually immune to prosecution.

Ian Singleton echoes the voices of many other Green workers I’ve met in his concluding comments – “Yes, there is reason for hope. But any improvements will be slow in materializing, and its by no means certain that orangutans, tigers, elephants, and even the tropical rainforests themselves as we know them today, will still be around when they do.”

He didn’t know it then, but these photos would show Damascus in the last weeks before the silence broke.

A poster of President al-Assad in a shop window declares, ‘We Love You’, from the election campaign in 2007 – he won 97.62 per cent of the vote. An accidently apt comment sits in the bottom-right corner.

The al-Assad’s are prolific monument builders. This statue of Saladin was unveiled in 1993 to mark the 800th anniversary of the Sultan’s death. The crusades have little relevance to the West, but they resound in the Arab imagination.In 2001, shortly after September 11, President Bush warned that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile”. The offhand comment resonated in the coffee shops and homes of the the Middle East.

Schoolboys lounge on the ruins of the Temple of Jupiter. On this site, the Arameans built a temple for Hadad, the god of storms. The Romans destroyed it, and built the Temple of Jupiter. The Christians toppled that, and built a church dedicated to John the Baptist. The Muslims left it alone. For 70 years. And then they knocked it down, and built the Ummayad Mosque.

Over a curiously receded jaw, the President-for-life watches a busy Damascus morning unfold with faint disdain. Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father, Hafiz, in 2000. It wasn’t supposed to be that way. It was his brother, Basil, who their father was grooming for the Presidency. In 1994, speeding to catch a flight, Basil missed a turn, drove into a curb at 125 miles per hour, and died instantly. Bashar was promptly ordered home from London.

Heavy security and images of President al-Assad are part of the Damascene scenery. Syria’s last rebellion occurred in 1982, in its fourth-largest city, Hama. Muslim Brotherhood militants took over state buildings, slaughtered government troops and regime collaborators, and declared the city ‘liberated’.
Hafiz al-Assad responded by sealing off the city and indiscriminately pounding it with tanks, aircraft and artillery. Twelve thousand troops then marched through the ancient city demolishing mosques and entire neighbourhoods. Amnesty International reports that they carried out “collective killings of unarmed, innocent inhabitants” and buried them in mass graves around the city. This destruction was wholly unnecessary; most of the resistance had fled or collapsed after a day of fighting. Hafiz al-Assad was making an example.

Mike Safi is currently completing a Masters of Peace and Conflict Studies.
All photos by the author.