Rudd's reforming government

My recent blog “‘Soft on terror? More like soft on democracy…” raised some interesting questions for me to consider in answer to Justin’s critical questions about the capacity of international law courts to monitor the world’s international concerns.

Justin was right in pointing out that there is currently a lack of an appropriate mechanism to facilitate such international discussions and he asked me to further explain my optimistic view in relation to the capacity of nations to engage in international dialogue to tackle international issues.

I’ve just finished reading Robert Manne’s essay in the Monthly title ‘What is Rudd’s Agenda?’. Manne states “since Gough Whitlam, no prime minister has arrived in office with a greater interest in foreign affairs than Kevin Rudd.” This has excited many a Y-Gen, a generation longing for change and upheaval. A generation of well-travelled tweens and adults, that have seen (from their very own privileged eyes) worlds different from their own, linguistically and culturally, and I feel that with the election of Obama, and Rudd’s commitment for Australia to become a key player in the international arena, we may just have a world leadership that could change the direction of international law as we know it.

Manne states that the Rudd government’s policy is three-fold; close relations with the United States, strong support for the United Nations and active engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. Under the Bush administration Howard was pushed into choosing between the US and the UN. With Obama’s commitment to end America’s involvement in the ‘war on terror’ the Rudd government won’t have to choose between the US and the UN, but will in fact be better placed to work alongside both towards common international goals.

Rudd’s commitment to increasing Australia’s involvement in the Asia-Pacific region will also go towards enhancing communication lines with some of the world’s biggest international players, such as China and Korea, two countries instrumental in bringing about change in the areas of disarmament and climate change. Manne writes that relations in the region are of particular importance because of the growing instability due to an accelerating arms race and because of new disputes over resources in a region of ‘steeply rising population and accelerating climate change’. It seems more critical than ever that our government is well placed to deal with these potential threats and tensions. I feel that Rudd’s ability to play the role of negotiator and mediator in the international arena will ensure stability for the Asia-Pacific region and will advantageously assist Australia’s strategic political position internationally.

When Rudd addressed the UN General Assembly he reiterated his commitment to his belief in the international arena. Rudd has put Australia right in the middle of the current international negotiations over the financial markets’ meltdown. He has specified that, for the first time, Australia will be a part of combating extreme international poverty, and he has consistently said that the biggest challenge for the next generation will be battling climate change (of which Obama this week supported).

Justin also asked me: Do you believe that domestic Courts should be given the power to determine whether an issue is connected to a matter of 'International Concern'? Or, do you believe that nations should act multilaterally to address these issues? To me, deciphering between domestic and international issues is becoming increasingly hard in the global community. It seems that all our issues are, or should be, of global concern. Terrorism transcends physical, political and moral boundaries. Climate change has shown the world how trouble in one region can be caused by the actions of a community on the other side of the world. And the ramifications of the failure of a country’s economic policies have proven to be globally devastating.

Perhaps education can be seen to be a domestic issue, but if Australia’s education system fails to meet international standards our children’s prospects and ability to move within the international job sector will suffer. Rudd appears to understand this. He has openly rejected the view that ‘society has no obligation to others unknown to us’ but instead stands by his traditional Christian values ‘that in giving you receive’.

So I have hope that Rudd’s values, and his commitment to further Australia’s international influence, will lead to great political change. To me, change is on its way. For instance, the US and Australia have the worst standards of maternity leave than any other country in the OECD. The Rudd government is changing this and policy reform will be seen within months.

Australia also has a horrible history of racial discrimination and an inability to go beyond ‘tolerance’ in the face of multiculturalism. The Rudd government is changing this. The Rudd government has said ‘sorry’ to the Indigenous people of our land, and has quietly dismantled Howard’s asylum-seeker policy. No more will people be detained inhumanely, an independent authority will monitor the short detainment of adults, and temporary-protection visas will no longer be issued.

As Manne states, the Rudd government is a ‘reforming government’. The major challenge for the Rudd government though is going to be the ability to bring about change in this economic climate, quickly enough to dim out the naysayers. Many have criticised Rudd of all speak and no action, and of using symbolism to hide a lack of reform, but I think this is unfair and I remain committed to the idea that knowledge is power. The utilisation of think tanks and inquiries makes perfect sense to me and I believe that the strength of symbolism and political rhetoric is not to be undermined. Whilst actions certainly speak louder than words, words fuel the battle and incite hope. This is why I’m optimistic. We’re heading into exciting times.