Showing posts with label Paul Keating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Keating. Show all posts

Friday, January 10, 2014

"And into this deadly crevice they fed their heroic, young obedient populations"


 Personally, and coming from an old Australian family that had more than a few members serve during World War I, I think Paul Keating's 2013 "controversial" Remembrance Day speech was one of the finest ever given on the awful human disaster that robbed Australian of so many young men,  and left us saddled with an Imperial War debt in the hundreds of millions of pounds. And for what?

Paul Keating, November 11, 2013:
Nine months from now, one hundred years ago, the horror of all ages came together to open the curtain on mankind's greatest century of violence the twentieth century.

What distinguished the First World War from all wars before it was the massive power of the antagonists.

Modern weaponry, mass conscription and indefatigable valour produced a cauldron of destruction the likes of which the world had never seen.

The statesmen who had set these forces in motion had never assumed that their conflict might be limited only by the scale of their young populations. They failed to understand how developing industrial organisation, railways, science and rising productive capacity rendered almost inexhaustible the ability of each to deliver the death blow and keep on delivering it.

The generals, especially the Allied ones, knew through military training that not since the Napoleonic Wars had frontal attacks been effective certainly not against the foil of barbed wire fortified by the modern machine gun. Yet, a line of trenches was dug, from the English Channel to the Swiss Alps - a front which denied commanders the opportunity of that classic military manoeuvre - the turning flank and encirclement. This denied, the line was fortified by major cannon and howitzers, while
the generals fell back on the only policy left to them - the policy of exhaustion.

And into this deadly crevice they fed their heroic, young obedient populations.

The First World War was a war devoid of any virtue. It arose from the quagmire of European tribalism. A complex interplay of nation state destinies overlaid by notions of cultural superiority peppered with racism.

The First World War not only destroyed European civilisation and the empires at its heart; its aftermath led to a second conflagration, the Second World War, which divided the continent until the end of the century.

But at the end of the century, from the shadows, a new light emerged. Europe turned its back on the nation state to favour a greater European construct. Individual loyalties are now directed from nationalist obsessions toward an amorphous whole and to institutions unlikely to garner a popular base. It is difficult to imagine these days, young Europeans going into combat for the European Commission, or at a stretch, the European Parliament.

This advent means that European leaders are no longer in a position to ask or demand the sacrifices which once attended their errant foreign policies. A century beyond Armageddon, young men and women are now freed from that kind of tyranny.

The virulent European disease of cultural nationalism and ethnic atavism not only destroyed Europe, it destroyed the equilibrium of the world.

While a century ago Australia was an outreach of European civilisation, here we had set about constructing an image of ourselves, free of the racial hatreds and contempts which characterised European society.

Though White Australia institutionalised a policy of bias to Caucasians; within Australia we were moving through the processes of our federation to new ideas of ourselves. Notions of equality and fairness suffrage for women, a universal living wage, support in old age, a sense of inclusive
patriotism.

And our sense of nation brought new resonances; Australian stories, poetry and ideas of our Australian-ness. We even developed a celebratory decorative style in our architecture and named that Federation. We had crystallised a good idea of ourselves and had begun to break free of the dismal legacy of Europe's ethnic stigmatisation and social stratification.

By 1915 we had no need to re-affirm our European heritage at the price of being dragged to a European holocaust. We had escaped that mire, both sociologically and geographically. But out of loyalty to imperial Britain, we returned to Europe's killing fields to decide the status of
Germany, a question which should earlier have been settled by foresight and statecraft.

Those bloody battles in Flanders, on the Western Front and at Gallipoli nevertheless distinguished us, demonstrating what we were made of. Our embrace of a new sense of human values and relationships through these events, gave substance to what is now the Anzac tradition. For whatever claims Britain and its empire had on those who served and died on the Western Front and at Gallipoli, the primary claim remained Australia's.

Those Australians fought and died not in defence of some old world notion of competing empires and territorial conquests but for the new world the one they belonged to and hoped to return to.

This is why Australia was never in need of any redemption at Gallipoli, any more than it was in need of one at Kokoda thirty years later. There was nothing missing in our young nation or our idea of it that required the martial baptism of a European cataclysm to legitimise us.

What the Anzac legend did do, by the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, was reinforce our own cultural notions of independence, mateship and ingenuity. Of resilience and courage in adversity. We liked the lesson about supposedly ordinary people; we liked finding that they were not ordinary at all. Despite the fact that the military campaigns were shockingly flawed and incompetently executed, those ordinary people distinguished themselves by their latent nobility.

The unknown Australian soldier interred in this memorial reminds us of these lessons as much as he reminds us of the more than 100,000 Australians lost to us by war.

I regard as a singular honour, the decision by the Council of the War Memorial to permanently display an engraving of the oration I gave as Prime Minister at the funeral service of the unknown Australian soldier on 11 November 1993. And to have some words from that oration inscribed
on that hallowed tomb. My time as Prime Minister spanned the period of the Pacific War, 1941 to 1945, fifty years on. It caused me to visit the sites of our military action from Papua New Guinea through to Thailand. It made me think much and write about the various episodes of conflict,
of the bravery and suffering of Australian service men and women during the Second World War.

This context sharpened the memory and essence of the Anzac legend, within which it was decided to inter an unnamed, unknown Australian soldier in the Memorial's Hall of Memory.

Indeed, the War Memorial's then director, Brendan Kelson and his deputy, Michael McKiernan, were instrumental in the process that led to the interment of the soldier.

The words the Memorial enshrines today were written for that occasion.

When Don Watson and I first discussed the writing of it, we both felt the poignancy of the occasion. My uncle, William Keating, had died in 1945 on the death march from Sandakan to Ranau, while Don Watson's grandfather was twice wounded in Flanders after being infected with Spanish flu. He returned to Australia, never recovering from it.

The history of those two theatres of war had haunted each of our lives in differing yet similar ways.

I thought it important that the speech express with clarity, simple notions of understanding and appreciation that went in personal terms, such that we might have been speaking of a relative who had died in some contemporary calamity. Hence the notion that he was all of them yet one of us.

By his interment, I thought it important to say that this unknown Australian soldier would serve his country yet again. That his presence would give us a deeper understanding of what it means to be Australian as well as serving to remind us of the sacrifice of the more than one hundred thousand men and women who never came home.

As Prime Minister, I was particularly pleased to bring these episodes of our history, especially the First and Second World Wars, into sharper relief. To remind us that the deeds of our men and women at war give us an opportunity to renew our belief in the country, while renewing our appreciation of their faith, loyalty and sacrifice.

The soul of a nation is the richer for it having been warmed by its stories and traditions. Yet its stories and traditions should not stifle or constrain its growth as it needs to adapt.

I am greatly heartened that so many young Australians find a sense of identity and purpose from the Anzac legend and from those Australian men and women who have fought in wars over the last hundred years. But the true commemoration of their lives, service and sacrifice is to understand that the essence of their motivation was their belief in all we had created here and our responsibility in continuing to improve it.

Homage to these people has to be homage to them and about them and not to some idealised or jingoist reduction of what their lives really meant.

One thing is certain: young Australians, like the young Europeans I mentioned earlier, can no longer be dragooned en masse into military enterprises of the former imperial variety on the whim of so-called statesmen. They are fortunately too wise to the world to be cannon fodder of the kind their young forebears became: young innocents who had little or no choice.

Commemorating these events should make us even more wary of grand ambitions and grand alliances of the kind that fractured Europe and darkened the twentieth century. In the long shadow of these upheavals, we gather to ponder their meaning and to commemorate the values that shone in their wake: courage under pressure, ingenuity in adversity, bonds of mateship and above all, loyalty to Australia.

There is a lot more to be said about Australia's role, and sacrifice, in World War I, and boy, are we sure going to hear about it this year. All year long.

NINE months from now, one hundred years ago, the horror of all ages came together to open the curtain on mankind's greatest century of violence the twentieth century.
What distinguished the First World War from all wars before it was the massive power of the antagonists.
Modern weaponry, mass conscription and indefatigable valour produced a cauldron of destruction the likes of which the world had never seen.
The statesmen who had set these forces in motion had never assumed that their conflict might be limited only by the scale of their young populations. They failed to understand how developing industrial organisation, railways, science and rising productive capacity rendered almost inexhaustible the ability of each to deliver the death blow and keep on delivering it.
The generals, especially the Allied ones, knew through military training that not since the Napoleonic Wars had frontal attacks been effective certainly not against the foil of barbed wire fortified by the modern machine gun. Yet, a line of trenches was dug, from the English Channel to the Swiss Alps - a front which denied commanders the opportunity of that classic military manoeuvre - the turning flank and encirclement. This denied, the line was fortified by major cannon and howitzers, while the generals fell back on the only policy left to them - the policy of exhaustion.
And into this deadly crevice they fed their heroic, young obedient populations.
The First World War was a war devoid of any virtue. It arose from the quagmire of European tribalism. A complex interplay of nation state destinies overlaid by notions of cultural superiority peppered with racism.
The First World War not only destroyed European civilisation and the empires at its heart; its aftermath led to a second conflagration, the Second World War, which divided the continent until the end of the century.
But at the end of the century, from the shadows, a new light emerged. Europe turned its back on the nation state to favour a greater European construct. Individual loyalties are now directed from nationalist obsessions toward an amorphous whole and to institutions unlikely to garner a popular base. It is difficult to imagine these days, young Europeans going into combat for the European Commission, or at a stretch, the European Parliament.
This advent means that European leaders are no longer in a position to ask or demand the sacrifices which once attended their errant foreign policies. A century beyond Armageddon, young men and women are now freed from that kind of tyranny.
The virulent European disease of cultural nationalism and ethnic atavism not only destroyed Europe, it destroyed the equilibrium of the world.
While a century ago Australia was an outreach of European civilisation, here we had set about constructing an image of ourselves, free of the racial hatreds and contempts which characterised European society. Though White Australia institutionalised a policy of bias to Caucasians; within Australia we were moving through the processes of our federation to new ideas of ourselves. Notions of equality and fairness suffrage for women, a universal living wage, support in old age, a sense of inclusive patriotism.
And our sense of nation brought new resonances; Australian stories, poetry and ideas of our Australian-ness. We even developed a celebratory decorative style in our architecture and named that Federation. We had crystallised a good idea of ourselves and had begun to break free of the dismal legacy of Europe's ethnic stigmatisation and social stratification.
By 1915 we had no need to re-affirm our European heritage at the price of being dragged to a European holocaust. We had escaped that mire, both sociologically and geographically. But out of loyalty to imperial Britain, we returned to Europe's killing fields to decide the status of Germany, a question which should earlier have been settled by foresight and statecraft.
Those bloody battles in Flanders, on the Western Front and at Gallipoli nevertheless distinguished us, demonstrating what we were made of. Our embrace of a new sense of human values and relationships through these events, gave substance to what is now the Anzac tradition. For whatever claims Britain and its empire had on those who served and died on the Western Front and at Gallipoli, the primary claim remained Australia's.
Those Australians fought and died not in defence of some old world notion of competing empires and territorial conquests but for the new world the one they belonged to and hoped to return to.
This is why Australia was never in need of any redemption at Gallipoli, any more than it was in need of one at Kokoda thirty years later. There was nothing missing in our young nation or our idea of it that required the martial baptism of a European cataclysm to legitimise us.
What the Anzac legend did do, by the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, was reinforce our own cultural notions of independence, mateship and ingenuity. Of resilience and courage in adversity. We liked the lesson about supposedly ordinary people; we liked finding that they were not ordinary at all. Despite the fact that the military campaigns were shockingly flawed and incompetently executed, those ordinary people distinguished themselves by their latent nobility.
The unknown Australian soldier interred in this memorial reminds us of these lessons as much as he reminds us of the more than 100,000 Australians lost to us by war.
I regard as a singular honour, the decision by the Council of the War Memorial to permanently display an engraving of the oration I gave as Prime Minister at the funeral service of the unknown Australian soldier on 11 November 1993. And to have some words from that oration inscribed on that hallowed tomb. My time as Prime Minister spanned the period of the Pacific War, 1941 to 1945, fifty years on. It caused me to visit the sites of our military action from Papua New Guinea through to Thailand. It made me think much and write about the various episodes of conflict, of the bravery and suffering of Australian service men and women during the Second World War.
This context sharpened the memory and essence of the Anzac legend, within which it was decided to inter an unnamed, unknown Australian soldier in the Memorial's Hall of Memory.
Indeed, the War Memorial's then director, Brendan Kelson and his deputy, Michael McKiernan, were instrumental in the process that led to the interment of the soldier.
The words the Memorial enshrines today were written for that occasion.
When Don Watson and I first discussed the writing of it, we both felt the poignancy of the occasion. My uncle, William Keating, had died in 1945 on the death march from Sandakan to Ranau, while Don Watson's grandfather was twice wounded in Flanders after being infected with Spanish flu. He returned to Australia, never recovering from it.
The history of those two theatres of war had haunted each of our lives in differing yet similar ways.
I thought it important that the speech express with clarity, simple notions of understanding and appreciation that went in personal terms, such that we might have been speaking of a relative who had died in some contemporary calamity. Hence the notion that he was all of them yet one of us.
By his interment, I thought it important to say that this unknown Australian soldier would serve his country yet again. That his presence would give us a deeper understanding of what it means to be Australian as well as serving to remind us of the sacrifice of the more than one hundred thousand men and women who never came home.
As Prime Minister, I was particularly pleased to bring these episodes of our history, especially the First and Second World Wars, into sharper relief. To remind us that the deeds of our men and women at war give us an opportunity to renew our belief in the country, while renewing our appreciation of their faith, loyalty and sacrifice.
The soul of a nation is the richer for it having been warmed by its stories and traditions. Yet its stories and traditions should not stifle or constrain its growth as it needs to adapt.
I am greatly heartened that so many young Australians find a sense of identity and purpose from the Anzac legend and from those Australian men and women who have fought in wars over the last hundred years. But the true commemoration of their lives, service and sacrifice is to understand that the essence of their motivation was their belief in all we had created here and our responsibility in continuing to improve it.
Homage to these people has to be homage to them and about them and not to some idealised or jingoist reduction of what their lives really meant.
One thing is certain: young Australians, like the young Europeans I mentioned earlier, can no longer be dragooned en masse into military enterprises of the former imperial variety on the whim of so-called statesmen. They are fortunately too wise to the world to be cannon fodder of the kind their young forebears became: young innocents who had little or no choice.
Commemorating these events should make us even more wary of grand ambitions and grand alliances of the kind that fractured Europe and darkened the twentieth century. In the long shadow of these upheavals, we gather to ponder their meaning and to commemorate the values that shone in their wake: courage under pressure, ingenuity in adversity, bonds of mateship and above all, loyalty to Australia.
- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/paul-keatings-remembrance-day-commemorative-address/story-e6frg8yo-1226757270589#sthash.16vxOzMf.dpuf
NINE months from now, one hundred years ago, the horror of all ages came together to open the curtain on mankind's greatest century of violence the twentieth century.
What distinguished the First World War from all wars before it was the massive power of the antagonists.
Modern weaponry, mass conscription and indefatigable valour produced a cauldron of destruction the likes of which the world had never seen.
The statesmen who had set these forces in motion had never assumed that their conflict might be limited only by the scale of their young populations. They failed to understand how developing industrial organisation, railways, science and rising productive capacity rendered almost inexhaustible the ability of each to deliver the death blow and keep on delivering it.
The generals, especially the Allied ones, knew through military training that not since the Napoleonic Wars had frontal attacks been effective certainly not against the foil of barbed wire fortified by the modern machine gun. Yet, a line of trenches was dug, from the English Channel to the Swiss Alps - a front which denied commanders the opportunity of that classic military manoeuvre - the turning flank and encirclement. This denied, the line was fortified by major cannon and howitzers, while the generals fell back on the only policy left to them - the policy of exhaustion.
And into this deadly crevice they fed their heroic, young obedient populations.
The First World War was a war devoid of any virtue. It arose from the quagmire of European tribalism. A complex interplay of nation state destinies overlaid by notions of cultural superiority peppered with racism.
The First World War not only destroyed European civilisation and the empires at its heart; its aftermath led to a second conflagration, the Second World War, which divided the continent until the end of the century.
But at the end of the century, from the shadows, a new light emerged. Europe turned its back on the nation state to favour a greater European construct. Individual loyalties are now directed from nationalist obsessions toward an amorphous whole and to institutions unlikely to garner a popular base. It is difficult to imagine these days, young Europeans going into combat for the European Commission, or at a stretch, the European Parliament.
This advent means that European leaders are no longer in a position to ask or demand the sacrifices which once attended their errant foreign policies. A century beyond Armageddon, young men and women are now freed from that kind of tyranny.
The virulent European disease of cultural nationalism and ethnic atavism not only destroyed Europe, it destroyed the equilibrium of the world.
While a century ago Australia was an outreach of European civilisation, here we had set about constructing an image of ourselves, free of the racial hatreds and contempts which characterised European society. Though White Australia institutionalised a policy of bias to Caucasians; within Australia we were moving through the processes of our federation to new ideas of ourselves. Notions of equality and fairness suffrage for women, a universal living wage, support in old age, a sense of inclusive patriotism.
And our sense of nation brought new resonances; Australian stories, poetry and ideas of our Australian-ness. We even developed a celebratory decorative style in our architecture and named that Federation. We had crystallised a good idea of ourselves and had begun to break free of the dismal legacy of Europe's ethnic stigmatisation and social stratification.
By 1915 we had no need to re-affirm our European heritage at the price of being dragged to a European holocaust. We had escaped that mire, both sociologically and geographically. But out of loyalty to imperial Britain, we returned to Europe's killing fields to decide the status of Germany, a question which should earlier have been settled by foresight and statecraft.
Those bloody battles in Flanders, on the Western Front and at Gallipoli nevertheless distinguished us, demonstrating what we were made of. Our embrace of a new sense of human values and relationships through these events, gave substance to what is now the Anzac tradition. For whatever claims Britain and its empire had on those who served and died on the Western Front and at Gallipoli, the primary claim remained Australia's.
Those Australians fought and died not in defence of some old world notion of competing empires and territorial conquests but for the new world the one they belonged to and hoped to return to.
This is why Australia was never in need of any redemption at Gallipoli, any more than it was in need of one at Kokoda thirty years later. There was nothing missing in our young nation or our idea of it that required the martial baptism of a European cataclysm to legitimise us.
What the Anzac legend did do, by the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, was reinforce our own cultural notions of independence, mateship and ingenuity. Of resilience and courage in adversity. We liked the lesson about supposedly ordinary people; we liked finding that they were not ordinary at all. Despite the fact that the military campaigns were shockingly flawed and incompetently executed, those ordinary people distinguished themselves by their latent nobility.
The unknown Australian soldier interred in this memorial reminds us of these lessons as much as he reminds us of the more than 100,000 Australians lost to us by war.
I regard as a singular honour, the decision by the Council of the War Memorial to permanently display an engraving of the oration I gave as Prime Minister at the funeral service of the unknown Australian soldier on 11 November 1993. And to have some words from that oration inscribed on that hallowed tomb. My time as Prime Minister spanned the period of the Pacific War, 1941 to 1945, fifty years on. It caused me to visit the sites of our military action from Papua New Guinea through to Thailand. It made me think much and write about the various episodes of conflict, of the bravery and suffering of Australian service men and women during the Second World War.
This context sharpened the memory and essence of the Anzac legend, within which it was decided to inter an unnamed, unknown Australian soldier in the Memorial's Hall of Memory.
Indeed, the War Memorial's then director, Brendan Kelson and his deputy, Michael McKiernan, were instrumental in the process that led to the interment of the soldier.
The words the Memorial enshrines today were written for that occasion.
When Don Watson and I first discussed the writing of it, we both felt the poignancy of the occasion. My uncle, William Keating, had died in 1945 on the death march from Sandakan to Ranau, while Don Watson's grandfather was twice wounded in Flanders after being infected with Spanish flu. He returned to Australia, never recovering from it.
The history of those two theatres of war had haunted each of our lives in differing yet similar ways.
I thought it important that the speech express with clarity, simple notions of understanding and appreciation that went in personal terms, such that we might have been speaking of a relative who had died in some contemporary calamity. Hence the notion that he was all of them yet one of us.
By his interment, I thought it important to say that this unknown Australian soldier would serve his country yet again. That his presence would give us a deeper understanding of what it means to be Australian as well as serving to remind us of the sacrifice of the more than one hundred thousand men and women who never came home.
As Prime Minister, I was particularly pleased to bring these episodes of our history, especially the First and Second World Wars, into sharper relief. To remind us that the deeds of our men and women at war give us an opportunity to renew our belief in the country, while renewing our appreciation of their faith, loyalty and sacrifice.
The soul of a nation is the richer for it having been warmed by its stories and traditions. Yet its stories and traditions should not stifle or constrain its growth as it needs to adapt.
I am greatly heartened that so many young Australians find a sense of identity and purpose from the Anzac legend and from those Australian men and women who have fought in wars over the last hundred years. But the true commemoration of their lives, service and sacrifice is to understand that the essence of their motivation was their belief in all we had created here and our responsibility in continuing to improve it.
Homage to these people has to be homage to them and about them and not to some idealised or jingoist reduction of what their lives really meant.
One thing is certain: young Australians, like the young Europeans I mentioned earlier, can no longer be dragooned en masse into military enterprises of the former imperial variety on the whim of so-called statesmen. They are fortunately too wise to the world to be cannon fodder of the kind their young forebears became: young innocents who had little or no choice.
Commemorating these events should make us even more wary of grand ambitions and grand alliances of the kind that fractured Europe and darkened the twentieth century. In the long shadow of these upheavals, we gather to ponder their meaning and to commemorate the values that shone in their wake: courage under pressure, ingenuity in adversity, bonds of mateship and above all, loyalty to Australia.
- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/paul-keatings-remembrance-day-commemorative-address/story-e6frg8yo-1226757270589#sthash.16vxOzMf.dpuf

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Turnbull Will Win Liberals Leadership, But Abbott Will Supply A Few Days Of Comedy

UPDATE : The Liberal Party have voted in former defence minister Brendan "We Went To Iraq For The Oil" Nelson as their new leader. Nelson defeated Turnbull by only three votes. More here.

The Liberal Party meltdown must, by now, be one of the most spectacular and entertaining in Australian political history. The election defeat was devastating, but the fallout has been absolutely nuclear.

And it continues.

Malcolm Turnbull will be the new leader of the Liberal Party by the weekend. I know this because the Murdoch media keeps telling me it will be so. And who in the Liberal Party would be brave enough to defy Rupert? The price paid for such insolence will be heavy. Newspoll derived headlines will shred any choice other than Turnbull.

The federal Liberals will move fast to distance themselves from WorkChoices and will repeatedly blame John Howard's decision to stay on as leader as the main reason for their shattering election loss.

If they don't do these things, they will draw too much attention to the other horrors of the Howard Liberals era that so many of those remaining so heartily, enthusiastically backed all year, and in some cases all decade, long.

As we mentioned here yesterday, Tony "Too Honest" Abbott has decided to offer up some comedy for the rest of the week, as he challenges Turnbull and the other contender, Brendan Nelson, for "the worst job in Australian politics", as the position of leader of the opposition is more commonly known in Canberra.

Tony Abbott kicks off the laughs by claiming he has much to offer the Liberal leadership, not the least his "people skills". Yes, really :

He admitted did not have the best of campaigns, but said he had demonstrated "reasonably good people skills"...

Here's but one example of Abbott's people skills.

"I had some tough times on the campaign trail and I would be the last to say that I was prince perfect,'' he said.

"We badly mishandled the politics of the fourth term [but] I’m not going to be repudiating the Howard government," he said.

That's why he won't get the job.

The Liberals are heading to the centre, and will rebrand themselves as far more tolerant understanding of the tough economic times faced by the millions of Australians who live in poverty, and the millions more who will be facing a fairly new kind of Australian poverty - they'll live in nice houses, have good jobs, but will have trouble paying for rising mortages, petrol and food bills.

Abbott was still singing the praises of John Howard :

"[He] will go down in history as a very great prime minister."

Very great? What happened to the Greatest Prime Minister In Australian History? Or at the very least, the Greatest Prime Minister Since Robert Menzies?

Here's Paul Keating explaining why Abbott won't be the new opposition leader :

"Well I don't know who should lead the Liberals, but I mean, I know who I wouldn't be going for. If they take Tony Abbott they're just going to go back down hill to wherever they've been. He's the one most like Howard ideologically....he's what I call a young fogey.

"Howard was the old fogey. He's the young fogey."

You can bet the Malcolm Turnbull backers are already calling Tony Abbott "The Young Fogey" behind his back as they try to scuttle the former health minister's support.


"I Want To Lead The Liberal Death March Into Greater Political Oblivion"

Tony Abbott : What A Scumbag

Tony Abbott : What A Scumbag Part Two

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

APEC : Welcome To Australia, President Putin

Thank Russia For 'Winning' World War 2 , Says Former Australian Prime Minister

Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating believes it's time for Australia to make an historic shift away from the America-first focus of our international relations and foreign policies.

Keating recognises Russia under Vladimir Putin as a rising star on Australia's trade horizon, and also thinks its time for Australia, the US and the rest of the former Allies, to finally recognise the enormous sacrifices the Russian people made to "win" World War 2.

If APEC really is about expanding Australia's trade frontiers, as prime minister John Howard claims, then clearly Russia should be of particular focus, as there is enormous new wealth there to soak up our coal, uranium and mineral exports. Along with a good, solid push to ramp up Australia as tourist destination number one for all those cashed-up Russians.

That Australia under John Howard is even thinking about spending billions to help the United States establish its Russia-and-China-baiting global 'missile shield' in our part of the world shows we're still doing the bidding of the US, even when no nation in the world poses a credible threat to Australia.

That Australia is still willing to help the US 'contain' and surround Russia and China in such relatively peaceful and prosperous times shows just how big the American thumb pressing our foreheads still is.

Instead of baring our teeth, t's time to pay homage to the Russian people, then and now, says Keating.

No doubt, Vladimir will be very, very pleased with the former prime minister's editorial :

Russia was offered a place at the APEC table not because it was a natural constituent, but as a consolation prize by the Americans, for their having taken strategic advantage of it in the years immediately following the Cold War.

No one should ever forget that the Russians carried the primary burden of winning World War II, losing 26 million of their people in the process. More than the present population of Australia. A level of death, destruction and misery on a scale unprecedented in human history.

When Hitler failed to smash Britain with his blitz, he unleashed on Russia the full might of his army and air force, then the largest in history. What followed was carnage and human suffering on an unimaginable scale as the Russian people absorbed his ferocious power. A battering they took for four solid years before a second front was opened in the west at Normandy.

The 20th century was nothing but a century of suffering for the Russian people; first the revolution, then the famine and the purges of the 1930s, then the war through the '40s, followed by the belt-tightening and deprivation of the Cold War.

Now the United States and NATO wish to build a series of anti-missile facilities around Russia's front lawn and side driveway, purportedly against rogue states, while none of the so-called rogue states have missile systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction.

The Russians know that despite the Soviet Union having been fragmented into 15 nations, with Russia becoming a democracy, the extension of NATO and the ring-fencing of Russia with an anti-missile shield is aimed at Russia itself, the state under permanent suspicion.

Four US presidential terms - the two Clinton ones and the two Bush ones - have witnessed a continual deterioration in relations with Russia. Russia is the state which still has the capacity to threaten Europe, yet its pleas for inclusion and to be taken seriously, have gone unheeded.

The problem is that when the Cold War finished the Americans cried victory and walked off the field. In strategic terms, the world is still set up on the template of 1947, with countries like Germany and Japan not even permanent members of the UN Security Council, while states like Italy and Canada remain part of the G8 at the expense of countries like China and India.

Seventeen years on, the Russians are still on the outside looking in, while the Chinese seek to garner their legitimacy by subjecting themselves to external bodies like the World Trade Organisation. The fact is, the world is run unrepresentatively. This is the problem.

For were it to be run otherwise, Russia, China and India would be part of the world growth amalgam, naturally aligning their security interests with their economic interests.

At least Russia is in APEC with us. Australia won't be circumscribing its interests knowing that inclusion and understanding are the only pathways to peace and progress.

We should welcome Putin on his first visit to Australia and tell him we have not forgotten the 26 million of his countrymen who died for our liberty as well as for their own.


Russians died for our liberty? That can't be right. All those American war movies piped through Australian television sets continually throughout the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s taught us that it was the Americans, not the Russians, that won World War 2 and saved Australia from numerous nasty -isms.


A few recent Russian news stories, of interest :

Russia Flexes Its Muscles Across Asia-Pacific In Bid To Restablish Itself As 'Great World Power'

NATO Hostile Towards Russians, Or So The Russians Believe

Russian Foreign Minister Says There Will Be No Bargaining Over Kosovo Or Missiles

It's Time For Russia To Become One Of Us

Russia Looks To Play Balancing Role In The World

Russia Engages Central Asia In War On Terror


Russia To Deploy More InterContinental Ballistic Missiles In December

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

"Old JellyBack" - Downer Steals Trademark Keating Insult To 'Wet Lettuce' Rudd

Foreign minister Alexander Downer refuses to yield to easy temptation of trying to score desperate political points off the terror-related issues, and the Dr Haneef fiasco :

"I think we could sum [Opposition leader) Mr Rudd up in one word – and that word is jellyback," he said in Manila, where he is attending a regional security meeting.

"This is somebody who has decided to change his position because of the media controversy," Mr Downer said.

"If Mr Rudd would have become a prime minister of Australia, I think we have a pretty clear idea that old jellyback would just do what the media said. And actually that's not the best way... to run a country."


Can't say that "Jellyback" is a slang term I've heard used all that often. But Googling around I came up with some interesting examples of its usage in the past.

According to the Urban Dictionary, 'Jellyback' (Jangler) can mean grabbing a woman's breast, twisting it and then slapping it.

Perhaps not the definition that Downer was reaching for. But then again, this is the same person who thought it was funny to make public jokes about horrific incidents of domestic violence.

The search for 'jellyback' got interesting when I narrowed it down to Australian references.

Lo and behold, who was the famous user of the insult "Jellyback" before Downer resurrected it?

Why Paul Keating, of course.

On more than a few occasions, Keating called former prime minister Bob Hawke, "Old Jellyback", just like Downer called Rudd.

And then in 2005, it started popping up in online forums all over Australia. But this time in reference to then Labor leader Kim Beazley, again with the "Old Jellyback".

So Downer is reduced to digging through old slang terms from, and for, former Labor prime minister to come up with something he can try to smear Rudd with?

How sad. How very Alexander Downer.

Downer and Tony 'The Cleaner' Abbott keep trying to come up with a nasty little name for Rudd that will stick, but nothing seems to stick. At least, not in the public mind. Well, nothing except for the reality check that Downer and Abbott are acting like a couple of moronic teenagers, with nothing more important to do than to call people names.

And it's refreshing to see Downer not reduced to trying to score any desperate political points off issues related to terrorism that he can. Downer would never do that. The threat of terror is far too important to be sidelined as a mere political issue, or a political cricket bat with which to donk your opponents on the head. Downer's said so himself, many times.

Speaking of Keating, here's some of the insults he tossed at John Howard when they were at war in Parliament in the 1980s and 1990s :

"He's wound up like a thousand day clock..."

"...the brain-damaged Leader of the Opposition..."

(Of his 1986 leadership) "From this day onwards, Howard will wear his leadership like a crown of thorns, and in the parliament I'll do everything to crucify him."

"He is the greatest job and investment destroyer since the bubonic plague."

"But I will never get to the stage of wanting to lead the nation standing in front of the mirror each morning clipping the eyebrows here and clipping the eyebrows there with Janette and the kids: It's like 'Spot the eyebrows'."

"I am not like the Leader of the Opposition. I did not slither out of the Cabinet room like a mangy maggot..."

"He has more hide than a team of elephants."

"I do not want to hear any mealymouthed talk from the Member for Benelong."

"The principle saboteur, the man with the cheap fistful of dollars."

What we have got is a dead carcass, swinging in the breeze, but nobody will cut it down to replace him."


I bet the "dead carcass" line above still makes Peter Costello laugh, and wince.

And poor little Alex. He wants to be as fast and funny and savage as Keating was, but all he can do is steal his best insults. Word for word.