Abbott's mission to Ukraine branded 'nuts'Date July 27, 2014 Prime Minister Tony Abbott's announcement of Australia's intention to send 190 armed Australian Federal Police and an unknown number of ADF [Australian Defence Force] personnel ... [... extract only ...]
|
---------------------------------------------
COMMENT
From the headline, I thought: Hey, someone's been reading social media.
SMH gives "Peter Dean, director of studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University", the megaphone -- after conveying the contrary views of some faceless, unnamed 'senior defence figure'.
The academic conveys:
''It really depends on the diplomacy undertaken around this,'' Dr Dean said. ''If our government can make its intentions clear and be accepted on those grounds I think this [Mr Abbott's goal] can be achieved.''
Dr Dean said Australia's status as a non-NATO member would play in its favour and its geographical distance from Europe would also help.
''I think we see it through a different lens than the European commentators,'' he said. [Yeah, through the US lens.]
''We are not sending the army over there to take on the Russians or separatists. It's not a European country interfering in another European country's business. It's a country from the outside that has experienced a significant loss of life of Australian people and permanent residents.
''The Prime Minister is wanting to send people to provide security. I don't think Australia is necessarily mad for wanting to do that.''
So who are you going to listen to: faceless, unnamed source in the military -- or an impressive academic specialist?
Hmmm ... looks to me like the academic is justifying Abbott's decision:
''We are not sending the army ...to take on Russians or separatists."
''The Prime Minister is wanting to send people to provide security. I don't think Australia is necessarily mad for wanting to do that.''
Anyone who has watched their own people being slaughtered around them and anyone who has put their own life on the line to defend their nation, their people; their pulverised town; their land; their national identity; their beliefs; their aims; their future and the future of generations ahead; is -- I'm guessing -- likely to be, at the very least, uneasy with foreign military presence on their blood-soaked soil, whatever the rationale offered.
Noticed Peter Dean happens to be a Fulbright Professional Scholar:
Fulbright Professional Scholar
Fulbright Professional Scholarship in Australian-United States Alliance Studies, sponsored by DFAT.
Peter Dean is currently Fellow and Director of Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University. He will study at Georgetown University, Washington from August to November 2014, focusing on Australia-United States strategic relations, and how that strategic relationship has evolved and changed over time.
He will also visit the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the leading global think tank for security and strategic issues.
and that this scholarship is sponsored by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade.
THE FULBRIGHT PROGRAM
The Australian-American Fulbright Commission is a non-profit organisation in Australia, established in 1949 to further mutual understanding between the U.S. and Australia through education and exchange.
... It is part of the world-wide Fulbright Program, administered by the U.S. State Department.
Maybe I'm one-eyed, but this looks to be yet another US-NGO linked (however tenuously) to the affairs of a foreign nation -- in this case, an ally, Australia. [See addendum below. Not NGO. Govt. org.]
The name of the game with NGOs [and GOs] appears to be networking, education and undoubtedly influence, whatever the noble, stated organisational aims.
The views of respected academic authorities are always very impressive.
Nonetheless one is bound to question: how independent and unbiased are the views of such authorities?
SMH reports:
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told parliament in The Hague on Friday he was too concerned about possible ramifications to send troops to Ukraine.
SMH quotes some American think tank nobody's ever heard of, based in Washington:
Joerg Forbrig, senior program officer for central and eastern Europe at the Berlin bureau of the German Marshall Fund of the US, said of the Australian plan: ''They must be nuts. It's a very dangerous proposal and will be seen as a provocation by the separatists and the Russians.''
Unknown think tank says Abbott's plan's nuts.
So why isn't think tank backing Abbott? Come on, what's going on?
Oh, I get it. Readers will see "eastern Europe" and "Berlin bureau" and "German", and they'll dismiss the statement.
The German Marshall Fund is a US NGO promoting 'democracy'.
Like all these NGO 'think tanks' it has tentacles all over:
"GMF has offices in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, Bucharest, and Warsaw. GMF also has smaller representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm"
-- and it puts out surveys.
So it would appear it is a US group with an agenda and a stake in interfering in Europe. And even this group is saying armed troops could be seen as provocative.
Netherlands is sending:
a separate mission of 40 unarmed military police to the site to help complete the forensic work and gather evidence, Mr Rutte said.
UK plays it smart at the sidelines:
Britain has sent one forensics specialist to Kiev and nine scientists are working in the Netherlands to help identify bodies and secure evidence.
... would ''offer logistical support and is keeping in close contact with the Australians and Dutch over how it can assist, though it won't be putting be sending police or technicians to Ukraine''.
''We believe a UK armed presence in eastern Ukraine would not be appropriate,'' the Foreign Office said in a statement. ''The UK stands ready to provide constructive support to the mission.''
But SMH had stated:
Malaysia, Germany and Britain are the other three nations that are expected to contribute to the security force.
It's unclear how UK is 'expected to contribute to the security force' if the UK Foreign Office believes a 'UK armed presence in eastern Ukraine would not be appropriate."
CONCLUSION
Is this Tony Abbott trying to play the hero in eastern Europe, to ass-kiss his big-boy buddy, USA?
And is this more likely a sly US attempt at getting a foothold in the eastern Ukrainian territory -- via a 'naive' but willing, Australian ally -- than it is about a 'bring them home' mission?
-----------------------
Addendum - Further info and Comment
Fulbright Program
The Fulbright Program operates in over 155 countries around the world. In each of 50 countries, a bi-national Fulbright Commission administers and oversees the Fulbright Program. In countries without a Fulbright Commission but that have an active program, the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy oversees the Fulbright Program.
The U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs sponsors the Fulbright Program from an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress. Additional direct and in-kind support comes from partner governments, foundations, corporations, and host institutions both in and outside the U.S.
The program is coordinated by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the U.S. Department of State under policy guidelines established by the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB), with the help of 50 bi-national Fulbright commissions, U.S. embassies, and cooperating organizations in the U.S.
The U.S. Department of State is responsible for managing, coordinating and overseeing the Fulbright program. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the bureau in the Department of State that has primary responsibility for the administration of the program.
Bi-national Fulbright commissions and foundations, most of which are funded jointly by the U.S. and partner governments, develop priorities for the program, including the numbers and categories of grants. More specifically, they plan and implement educational exchanges, recruit and nominate candidates for fellowships; designate qualified local educational institutions to host Fulbrighters; fundraise; engage alumni; support incoming U.S. Fulbrighters; and, in many countries, operate an information service for the public on educational opportunities in the United States
In a country active in the program without a Fulbright commission, the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy administers the Fulbright Program, including recruiting and nominating candidates for grants to the U.S., overseeing U.S. Fulbrighters on their grant in the country, and engaging alumni.
Related organizations
The Fulbright Association is an organization independent of the Fulbright Program and not associated with the U.S. Department of State. The Fulbright Association was established on Feb. 27, 1977, as a private nonprofit, membership organization with over 9,000 members. The late Arthur Power Dudden was its founding president. He wanted alumni to educate members of the U.S. Congress and the public about the benefits of advancing increased mutual understanding between the people of the United States and those of other countries. In addition to the Fulbright Association in the U.S., independent Fulbright Alumni associations exist in over 75 countries around the world.
The Fulbright Academy is an organization independent of the Fulbright Program and not associated with the U.S. Department of State. A non-partisan, non-profit organization with members worldwide, the Fulbright Academy focuses on the professional advancement ... individual and institutional members, Fulbright alumni associations and other organizations interested in leveraging the unique knowledge and skills of Fulbright alumni.
[Source - wikipedia]
Further Comment
If I have this straight, the Fulbright Program is sponsored by US and Australian government (or other governments, as the case may be) and it is coordinated by US government, its Fulbright Commissions around the world and US embassies, in cooperation 'with organisations in the US'.
Although the Fulbright Program is related to what appear to be NGOs (the Fulbright Association and the Fulbright Academy), the Fulbright Program itself and the Fulbright Commissions -- and therefore Fulbright Scholarships - arise from US (and partner) government funding.
The Fulbright Program (from which scholarships arise) is therefore not an NGO (as initially appraised by the blogger) - it's a full US government (and partner government) org -- although foundations, corporations and host institutions -- both in US and wherever program is hosted -- may also contribute to funding.
The Fulbright Program (from which scholarships arise) is therefore not an NGO (as initially appraised by the blogger) - it's a full US government (and partner government) org -- although foundations, corporations and host institutions -- both in US and wherever program is hosted -- may also contribute to funding.
And if you look at the picture from a cynic's point of view, the entire thing looks like an indoctrination scheme and pyramid 'selling' scheme (er, educational, cultural, networking initiative) that reaches out around the globe -- selling the US, its perspective and its agenda, creating contact points for the US and surely quietly influencing on behalf of the US, with cooperative governments -- and I'm guessing any sponsoring CORPORATIONS in the US and beyond.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
But, hey, I could be sitting here wearing tin foil on my head, so make up your own minds.
