From Civil Strife to Civil Society: civil and military responsibilities in disrupted states

"The 1990s saw the United Nations, the militaries of key member states, and NGOs increasingly entangled in the complex affairs of disrupted states. Whether as deliverers of humanitarian assistance or as agents of political, social, and civic reconstruction, whether in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, or East Timor, these actors have had to learn ways of interacting with each other in order to optimize the benefits for the populations they seek to assist. Yet the challenges have proved daunting. Civil and military actors have different organizational cultures and standard operating procedures and are confronted with the need to work together to perform tasks to which different actors may attach quite different priorities."--BOOK JACKET.

Educating to secure the national interest

In this paper I examine how one political actor–former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd–proposes to use education for the purpose of securing national productivity and foreign policy. I work with Foucault’s suggestion that the apparatus of security is the essential technical instrument of governmentality and that the production of milieu, made up of human, spatial, temporal and cultural objects, and the government of risk are key strategies in the bio-politicisation of security. The discourse analysis also draws on Bacchi to problematise statements that (a) represent both the nation and regional neighbours as governable milieu within the ambit of a whole of government approach, and (b) locate literacy and education as both risk and solution in a security apparatus. My examination of the emergence of literacy and education as security technologies, takes account of the discursive effects of Rudd’s representation of the spaces and scale of national, geopolitical and global policy problems. I argue that in these examples of policy texts, education is used as a discursive tool to secure education workers and youth as subjects of economic interest and sovereign rule.

Martha and her sisters : women in films about journalism

HBO's Hemingway and Gellhorn (Philip Kaufman, 2012), broadcast in May on US television and starring Nicole Kidman as the pioneering female foreign correspondent, hasn't been well reviewed by the majority of critics. Variety described the biopic (with Clive Owen as Hemingway) as “swollen and heavy-handed”, while the Huffington Post declared it an “expensive misfire … a gigantic missed opportunity, a jaw-droppingly trying waste of time”. Regardless of whether such criticisms are fair—as this essay went to press I had been unable to see the film, so I cannot judge one way or the other—Hemingway and Gellhorn should be viewed as a significant addition to the filmography of journalism, retrieving from history as it does the achievements of one of the most significant of the early female practitioners. Gellhorn was a pioneer in a patriarchal press universe, a foreign and war correspondent at a time when this branch of the profession was seen very much as man's work. She covered the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War, and with just as much viscerality as any man.

Uncritical framing : lesson and knowledge structure in school science

There is clearly contention over the shape and formation of science curriculum and over, ultimately, what will count as scientific knowledge, skill, capacity and world view. The Cold War set the policy context for an ongoing focus on science education across Western nations. Sputnik-era US and UK educational policy offered a broad premise for the purpose of school science: in a risky geopolitical environment, high levels of advanced scientific expertise were central to the national interest and necessary for the maintenance of military/industrial and technological power. Half a century on, in the context of global economic and environmental crisis, as a justification for digital, industrial and biomedical innovation, the rationale for the production of scientific capital is central to curriculum settlements and educational policy in Europe, Asia and the Americas.

Regulating Multi-National Corporations Through State-Based Laws : Problems with Enforcing Human Rights Under The Alien Tort Statute

Under the Alien Tort Statute United States of America (“America”) Federal Courts have the jurisdiction to hear claims for civil wrongs, committed against non-American citizens, which were perpetrated outside America’s national borders. The operation of this law has confronted American Federal Courts with difficulties on how to manage conflicts between American executive foreign policy and judicial interpretations of international law. Courts began to pass judgment over conduct which was approved by foreign governments. Then in 2005 the American Supreme Court wound back the scope of the Alien Tort Statute. This article will review the problems with the expansion of the Alien Tort Statute and the reasons for its subsequent narrowing.

Governing civil society: How literacy, education and security were brought together

This study questions how the categories of security, education and literacy were brought together as related elements of a whole-of-government strategy in the production of civil society. Drawing on an analysis of key political texts, the study argues that the categories of education and literacy have been used in diverse ways in the production of national, social, economic and geopolitical security interests. As dialogue about security has intensified, rationalisations about the national interest have engaged notions of security leading to the legitimation of a diverse set of policy instruments, strategically used to contain the rise of complex social forces and protect homogenous cultural values.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Didiman: Australian agricultural extension officers in the territory of Papua and New Guinea, 1945-1975

Historically, the development philosophy for the two Territories of Papua and New Guinea (known as TPNG, formerly two territories, Papua and New Guinea) was equated with economic development, with a focus on agricultural development. To achieve the modification or complete change in indigenous farming systems the Australian Government’s Department of External Territories adopted and utilised a programme based on agricultural extension. Prior to World War II, under Australian administration, the economic development of these two territories, as in many colonies of the time, was based on the institution of the plantation. Little was initiated in agriculture development for indigenous people. This changed after World War II to a rationale based on the promotion and advancement of primary industry, but also came to include indigenous farmers. To develop agriculture within a colony it was thought that a modification to, or in some cases the complete transformation of, existing farming systems was necessary to improve the material welfare of the population. It was also seen to be a guarantee for the future national interest of the sovereign state after independence was granted. The Didiman and Didimisis became the frontline, field operatives of this theoretical model of development. This thesis examines the Didiman’s field operations, the structural organisation of agricultural administration and the application of policy in the two territories.

Humanitarianism or self-serving hypocrisy? : the provision of aid to South Africa under the Hawke-Keating and Howard governments

General perceptions of foreign aid commonly engender images of humanitarianism and altruism, whereby the humanitarian needs of the recipient of development assistance are of the utmost priority of the aid donor. However, the Australian governments led by Hawke, Keating and Howard often gave humanitarianism a low emphasis, frequently placing Australia’s own foreign policy and economic concerns at the forefront of aid allocation – often unashamedly. This self-interest met through aid meant that most was provided to Australia’s regional neighbourhood, neglecting some of the poorest, most struggling states, including South Africa. Other issues and events, including the Cold War, apartheid, terrorism and HIV/AIDS also affected Australia’s aid policy; mostly, they were used as excuses to limit aid to states like South Africa.

Industry policy, finance and the AIDC : Australia from the 1950s to the 1970s

This thesis, conceived within a Marxist framework, addresses key conceptual issues in the writing and theorising on industry policy in post second world- war Australia. Broadly, the thesis challenges the way that industry policy on the left of politics (reflected in the social democratic and Keynesian positions) has been constructed as a practical, progressive policy agenda. Specifically, the thesis poses a direct challenge to the primacy of the ‘national’ in interpreting the history of industry policy. The challenge is to the proposition that conflicts between national industry and international finance arose only from the mid 1980s. On the contrary, as will be seen, this is a 1960s issue and any interpretation of the debates and the agendas surrounding industry policy in the 1980s must be predicated on an understanding of how the issue was played out two decades earlier. As was the case in the 1960s, industry policy in the 1980s has been isolated from two key areas of interrogation: the role of the nation state in regulating accumulation and the role of finance in industry policy. In the 1950s and more so in the 1960s and early 1970s there was a reconfiguration of financing internationally but it is one that did not enter into industry policy analysis. The central concern therefore is to simultaneously sketch the historical political economy on industry policy from the 1950s through to the early 1970s in Australia and to analytically and empirically insert the role of finance into that history. In so doing the thesis addresses the economic and social factors that shaped the approach to industry finance in Australia during this critical period. The analysis is supported by a detailed examination of political and industry debates surrounding the proposal for, and institution of, a key national intervention in the form of the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC).

The differential impact of monetary policy announcements and explanatory minutes releases on the Australian interest rate futures market

Unlike US and Continental European jurisdictions, Australian monetary policy announcements are not followed promptly by projections materials or comprehensive summaries that explain the decision process. This information is disclosed 2 weeks later when the explanatory minutes of the Reserve Bank board meeting are released. This paper is the first study to exploit the features of the Australian monetary policy environment in order to examine the differential impact of monetary policy announcements and explanatory statements on the Australian interest rate futures market. We find that both monetary policy announcements and explanatory minutes releases have a significant impact on the implied yield and volatility of Australian interest rate futures contracts. When the differential impact of these announcements is examined using the full sample, no statistically significant difference is found. However, when the sample is partitioned based on stable periods and the Global Financial Crisis, a differential impact is evident. Further, contrary to the findings of Kim and Nguyen (2008), Lu et al. (2009), and Smales (2012a), the response along the yield curve, is found to be indifferent between the short and medium terms.

Government cracks down on tax avoidance through foreign investment rules

The Turnbull Government announced yet another measure aimed at addressing tax base erosion and profit shifting, placing additional requirements on new foreign investment under the existing national interest test. In the last 12 months Australia has seen various reforms within the tax system. However, this latest initiative is a shift as it links Australia’s tax regime with its foreign investment regime. It sends a broader signal to the market that Australia will look beyond the collection of tax revenues to a consideration of national interest.