Australia: Turnbull Rising

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://newmatilda.com/2015/09/19/rise-malcolm-turnbull-staggering-wealth-surprising-aggression-substantial-intellect Summary Malcolm Turnbull wealth from:  stake in local ISP OzEmail / sold lawyer investment banker co-chairman of Goldman Sach’s Australian unit from 1997-2001 Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs: "world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid"  ... "relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money" ... ... financial crisis ... "a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates" HIH "Australia’s then-second largest insurance company, HIH" "HIH took over FAI for $300 million, but its assets were “grossly misstated”  "HIH would become the largest corporate collapse in the country’s history, with liquidators estimating losses of up to $5.3 billion.” "Turnbull, in his capacity at Goldman Sachs, was the “primary adviser to FAI”, whose chief executive was Rodney Adler." "Turnbull was accused of concealing from the FAI board that he was working with Adler to take the company private. Adler was later jailed, but the Royal Commission cleared Turnbull and Goldman Sachs of any wrongdoing." Wentworth Electorate eastern suburb - Sydney Of 10 richest suburbs in Sydney =  5 postcodes were in Wentworth Of 10 most expensive suburbs in Australia =  5 are in Wentworth Turnbull resides = “vast waterfront estate” in Point Piper, similar to a nearby mansion which sold for $52 million Turnbull = only politician to make the BRW Rich 200 in 2010, with personal wealth of $186 million {  next wealthiest at the time was Kevin Rudd and his wife Therese Rein, at $56 million } Wentworth = safe Liberal seat = reason: voters in Wentworth vote in support of their own financial interests Wentworth =  large Jewish population =  Turnbull has represented an electorate with “the largest Jewish community in New South Wales” Turnbull = staunch defender of the Israeli government = strong relationship with many elements of Jewish community, & its major organisations Censorship 'Hate speech' reform = killed off by Abbott and Brandis duo = Turnbull likely to back Brandis’s attempt to: more strictly regulate racist speech which appears to have been driven by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies concern at a speech made by Hizb ut-Tahrir = Turnbull - will be careful not to antagonise the Jewish community Israel Turnbull competed every election with Labor candidates = by promising to be the most loyal to the interests of the Israeli govt = as PM,will need to temper his advocacy for Israel Foreign Minister Julie Bishop = on pro-Israel extreme side of spectrum = opposition unlikely to challenge Turnbull on this, esp. 'Shadow Foreign Affairs' spox Tanya Plibersek = biggest challenge re Iranian govt: selling outreach and rehabilitation, under Julie Bishop to Liberal party's Jewish supporters Turnbull Profile by John Lyons Good Weekend - 1991 'threat' appears x10 'fear' appears x6 Abbott embarrassingly gauche vs Turnbull recipient of proper class training David Hicks 2005 - Turnbull address, Amnesty International (in Paddington) =  great charm and persuasion =  coupled with: "Turnbull wouldn’t commit to saying or doing anything" Turnbull speech - 7 July 2015  -  *worth checking out http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-to-the-sydney-institute-magna-carta-and-the-rule-of-law-in-the-digit Policy led campaign for Australia to become a Republic support for gay marriage climate change - watered down version of Rudd’s plan Climate Change “We cannot be seen as a party of climate sceptics, of do-nothings on climate change." [Turnbull] = "Howard’s obstinacy on the issue helped pave the way for the election of Kevin Rudd in 2007." {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} = Turnbull negotiated "a watered down version of Rudd’s plan on climate change action" ... committed to no more than cuts of 5 per cent of emissions below 2000 by 2020" / described as inadequate {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} "attack on public opinion from both sides of the political spectrum played a major role in destroying public faith in the urgency of political action on climate change" {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} "Abbott’s gambit of fiercely opposing action on climate change was seen by many as a risky, if not foolish ..." {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} Turnbull =  lost the leadership of Liberals by x1 vote "... rebuke and overthrow of Turnbull for his position on climate change can be seen as the lesson to him in his second run as leader."   {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} Immigration 2009 Turnbull warned Australia a “soft target” by Rudd’s reforms to Howard’s policies Turnbull =  “The object of Australia's border protection policies should be no boats.”" Turnbull 2009 = said Rudd has “lost control of our borders”, with the arrival of a new “people smuggling boat with illegal immigrants”. Turnbull = favoured - reintroduction of: Temporary Protection Visas Offshore processing Video linked in Article (quote from audio, not article) Muslim Schools 1:15 "It is important for us that we promote and encourage Islam and Islamic traditions which are moderate, which support freedom, which support democracy, and which support Australian values -- not in the sense of 'Aussie values' -- but in the sense of democracy, rule of law, tolerance, freedom.  That's what we're talking about."[Malcolm Turnbull] Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgTcwWOscqc&feature=youtu.be Jewish organisations =  thrilled by Turnbull’s promotion Muslim leaders = cautious optimism re rise of Turnbull Business =  very excited by the rise of Turnbull = business lobby is excited, & have good reason to be =  Turnbull might be able to push through their favoured measures: reforms to laws - currently preventing media monopolies = Turnbull:  "only way, we can ... remain ... first-world society ... if we have outstanding economic leadership, if we have strong business confidence" *But:  WorkChoices and Joe Hockey’s first budget have shown, these are areas where Liberal govt must tread lightly Right-wing 'low-brow conservatives' = not so keen on Turnbull & elitism Murdoch press right-wing pundits = not fans of Turnbull Murdoch = but Rupert Murdoch  appears to have rallied behind Turnbull to beat the ALP Murdoch Press =  Murdoch press may well be able to turn away many of the Coalition’s voters from Turnbull {but, why would they?} MEDIA Turnbull = favourable coverage from: Monthly ABC Fairfax LEFT Not much reason for leftists to be optimistic = different rhetoric, but same sell CONCLUSION Turnbull =  liberal instincts, tempered by the same ruthlessness he showed in his business dealings =  commitment to liberal values - outweighed by commitment to pursuing power when he led the Opposition source https://newmatilda.com/2015/09/19/rise-malcolm-turnbull-staggering-wealth-surprising-aggression-substantial-intellect ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Summary, as I see the article.  Best to go to article for the full deal, as this is just what caught my eye ... and what I've understood, which isn't necessarily 100%.  Very good article.  Really enjoyed checking that out. So somewhere between being in defence of freedom of speech, Brandis has back-flipped and now wants tighter censorship of speech / expression that might cause 'offence'? That's rather confusing.  Can't Brandis make up his mind? Any chance of legislating against the passage of politically suppressive bullsh*t? Just did a catch-up on the Brandis back-flip, which is really also a Liberal party election promise back-flip: Brandis Backflip On Hate Speech http://markdreyfus.nationbuilder.com/brandis_backflip_on_hate_speech Laws restricting freedom of speech don't merely apply to the occasional 'genocide advocate' or whatever that guy is that's supposedly a catalyst for the Liberal party back-flip. Suppressive laws of this kind affect everybody, across all manner of political and historical debate -- or lack thereof. Other Mark Dreyfus QC MP Attorney-General of Australia 4 Feb 2013 – 18 Sept 2013 Preceded by:  Nicola Roxon Prime Ministers Julia Gillard Kevin Rudd Australian Labor Party Promoted to Attorney-General - after resignation of Nicola Roxon / reason cited:  Roxon wanted to be with her family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dreyfus Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

Australia: Malcolm Turnbull the fourth PM since 2013

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1473 Liberal Party Leadership source https://twitter.com/DunkenKBliths source https://twitter.com/DunkenKBliths Australian PM Tony Abbott Toppled By His Own Former Communications Minister Replaced swiftly by his former communications minister Malcolm Turnbull in a 54-44 vote, making Turnbull the fourth PM since 2013, Sharmini Peries speaks with Dr. Binoy Kampmark about the current political juncture in Australia -   46 min ago    Full Episode Australia Australian PM Tony Abbott Toppled By His Own Former Communications Minister Audio Transcript Australian PM Tony Abbott Toppled By His Own Former Communications Minister SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. Tony Abbott, who was Australia's prime minister until Monday, was ousted by Malcolm Turnbull and his own party members. Here's what Abbott had to say on his departure. TONY ABBOTT: The nature of politics has changed in the past decade. We have more polls and more commentary than ever before. Mostly sour, bitter, character assassination. Poll-driven panic has produced a revolving door prime ministership, which can't be good for our country. And a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery. PERIES: Mr. Abbott, who has been weathering a series of poor opinion polls, charged with mismanagement of the budget, received 44 votes in a leadership challenge by his former communications minister Turnbull, who got 54 of the votes. Upon taking office, this is what he had to say. MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Australia of the future has to be a nation that is agile. That is innovative. That is creative. PERIES: Under the Australian system, as in the UK, the prime minister is not directly elected by voters, but the party leader is selected by the party that commands most of the seats in parliament. Now joining me to tell us more about what's happening is Dr. Binoy Kampmark. He's a senior lecturer at the School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies at RMIT University in Melbourne. He ran on the senate ticket with Julian Assange for the WikiLeaks Party in the Australian federal election in 2013. Binoy, good to have you with us at the Real News Network. BINOY KAMPMARK: It's a pleasure being with you. PERIES: Binoy, give us a rundown on what's going on in Australian politics, particularly with the Liberal party, in the recent weeks. KAMPMARK: Well, I think for your listeners and your viewers, I think a very important thing to remember is that the Australian system is based on what is called the Westminster model. The Westminster model is a very strange one. It means that the leader of the country and the leader of the party is not directly elected by the people. So what effectively this means is that the prime minister in office can potentially be deposed. Can potentially be overturned, you name it, assassinated, whatever sort of exciting term you'd like to use there. And interesting enough, in the caption that you mentioned there, Tony Abbott's remarks, this is exactly what's been happening in Australia since 2008. Prime ministers have been surprisingly mortal in their positions because of party opinion rather than public opinion because the party membership have gotten very worried about the elections, the result being that they get rid of the prime minister and they replace the prime minister with their favorite. And that's what we've been seeing lately. PERIES: And I understand that Turnbull is the fourth prime minister you've had since 2013. KAMPMARK: Yes. It's too many, as far as I'm concerned. They all, these characters who are filling the ledgers and filling the accounts. The reality of it is, and this is something that I've conversated about extensively and I've written about, the idea about having a prime minister through the revolving door, as Mr. Abbott himself said, irrespective of whatever political belief you might have, there is no fixed term in Australia. There is no fixed prime ministerial term. There is a flexibility there about calling elections and there is a flexibility there about leadership. And it may be also something to consider in a broader reform for the system. But that's the nature of the Australian political system. PERIES: Now, both of these men are part of a Liberal party that is actually far from liberal when it comes to issues such as gay marriage and addressing issues of climate change. And in this particular case Turnbull seems to be more on the right side, at least, of history moving forward. KAMPMARK: Well, yes. Again, for those who are not familiar, the reality is that in Australia there is a term used, liberal. It is not the term, of course, that is accepted in the United States. The term liberal is associated usually with the progressive side of politics. Liberal in Australia has a specific classicist association with Sir Robert Menzies, who was the leader of the party from the '40s, and was the leader of the party throughout the early stages of the cold war in Australia. So the reality is that we're dealing with a conservative party with conservative values. Now, historically, Malcolm Turnbull is not perceived to be that conservative, and that is one of the problems. He's been accused by his own party members as being a progressive in some sort of clothing of another conservative variety. So the question is, will he be a true conservative member on the liberal side in the Australian context of politics, or will he actually do something different? And that is something that people are waiting for, and we'll see what happens. PERIES: And what are the opinion polls in Australia like in terms of some of the more liberal issues? What are the people thinking, in other words, about climate change and issues of gay marriage, for example? KAMPMARK: Well, in terms of gay marriage the opinion polls suggest an overwhelming acceptance about the acceptability, as it were, of the institution. And that Australia has been lagging behind other countries, and that Australia effectively should, as it were, take a position on this more firmly and reform the law accordingly. That's one thing. It depends which issue, of course, we're talking about. If we're talking about, for example, refugees, the Australian electorate is rather conservative. The reason why, for example, the opposition leader of the Australian [inaud.] party and the, in fact, numerous parties with the exception perhaps of the Greens in Australia believe that refugees should be kept out of the country. Well, that's something that we'll have to see whether Mr. Turnbull changes it. In terms of climate change, Mr. Turnbull has shown amenability towards changing that platform, and I think he's going to budge on that. But when it comes to refugees and those broader issues, I'm not entirely sure whether he will change that. PERIES: But at the same time, Abbott's leadership came to a head, I think, particularly when he took such a harsh position, a reaction to the refugees and indicated that they've managed to stop boats from coming to Australia. Is that the political climate that he reflects? KAMPMARK: Sadly I do think it is. You have to remember, if you look carefully at the speeches being given by the new Australian prime minister, he's very careful not to mention the refugee situation too much. With the exception of this, that Mr. Abbott before he as deposed did make the concession that there would be the acceptance of 12,000 refugees from Syria. But with the exception of that, the hardline is fundamental. The Australian body politic, as it were, the suspicion about people arriving on boats is a very strong one. I'm not suggesting that it's a very good idea at all. I think in many ways it's an absurd thing. But it has been built into the political culture which has made politicians constantly build their political careers on being strong on preventing people arriving on boats to Australia. And I am interested to see whether Mr. Turnbull will change this. My feeling is he's not necessarily going to change this at all. PERIES: And where is the Labour Party in all of this? We of course saw this week in the UK the Labour Party electing a much more radical leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to head the party. Is there any such possibility in Australia? KAMPMARK: The individual who's currently leading the Labour Party is what I would call a conventional technocrat. Tony Blair would be very proud of him. The old, of course, the former British prime minister who was speaking about stakeholder economies was talking about a labor movement, if you like, that was more connected to the market. This individual, namely Mr. Shorten, is not in the Corbyn mould. Corbyn is the exception to the rule. I will tell you an example in terms of what happened recently in terms of Labour Party politics in Australia. At the Labour Party conference they accepted turn back the boats as a policy. They accepted that people should be detained in camps, and they accepted that there should be no resettlement in Australia for refugees. And if that's not a defiance of traditional Labour Party principles in what we would think about that, I don't know what is. PERIES: And a very curious note on your bio was that you along with Julian Assange ran for the WikiLeaks party in Australia in federal election in 2013. Tell us a sense of where the WikiLeaks party is at and your role in Australian politics at the moment. KAMPMARK: Well, my role in Australian politics is as an annoying scribbler, at the moment. I dabble and I engage in as many things as I can on the ground. In terms of the actual WikiLeaks experiment it is I suppose, to put it lightly, dormant at the moment. Julian Assange has many things to deal with in captivity, so to speak, pseudo-captivity in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, and I have various things I need to do in the context of broader political issues. But when it comes down to it the ideas still prevail, but the political structure, of course, is something that's become a bit hard to sustain. But that's the nature of these things. It's an incredible effort, as anyone who knows how to run a party knows. So when it comes down to it, happily engaged politically with pen, not perhaps so much with paper in the actual sense. PERIES: Dr. Binoy Kampmark, I thank you so much for enlightening us with Australian politics today, and we hope to have you back very soon. KAMPMARK: Anytime. It's lovely speaking with you. PERIES: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network. EndDISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. source http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14735 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Some interesting commentary on the recent Australian Liberal Party leadership switch. I'm conservative in my outlook, so I would support most socially conservative positions - as well as firm control of borders. But that conflicts with opposition to: eg. censorship, mass surveillance etc, and economic punishment of the unemployed, elderly, and working classes, as well as privatisation of public assets & services, and entry into American 'free trade' agreements. So there's no right mix of positions, from my point of view. ꕤ

Australia - In bed with foreign interests?

* AUSTRALIA * National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - NEW HACKING POWERS 4 ASIO - http://goo.gl/KICslg - #Brandis #AUSPOL "ASIO would also be able to add, copy, delete or alter data on the third party computer or communication in transit" #Auspol - Nat Security Amendment Legislation = "creating a category of 'Special Intell Ops', disclosure of which could risk prosecution." >> sounds like the fortification of a FASCIST STATE The Israel Allies Caucus is a caucus in the United States House of Representatives made up of members who (cont) http://tl.gd/n_1satpkc  #TonyAbbott & the creation of Australian Parliamentary Israel Allies Caucus>>> http://goo.gl/rMLpVP  >> Hmmm 'occupied territory' #auspol #Gaza " Israel is the only truly democratic nation in the Middle East" Fred Nile (Australia) ... Selective democracy? Nile's a lunatic. KNESSET CHRISTIAN ALLIES CAUCUS - Nile Reverend The Hon Fred - http://goo.gl/TaJ8Ai  - 25/06/14 - #Auspol - So where's Neo-Pagan Caucus? Stumbled on these things in my travels.  On the one hand, there is this widening of state control and surveillance. On the other hand, there is the state in bed with foreign interests. That's how I see it. The bit about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East is straight out of a US Zionist NGO's public persuasion campaign.   So the politicians/government cosy up to these pro-Israel 'interest groups' and re-write Middle-Eastern history after the September election? Sure looks like that to me. Denying that Palestine is occupied is denying the truth.

MH17 - RUSSIAN CEASE-FIRE PROPOSAL BLOCKED BY U.S., AUSTRALIA & TAG-ALONG LITHUANIA

West blocks Moscow’s UN plea to reinstate ceasefire at MH17 crash site Published time: August 08, 2014 11:07 The UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution on reinstating the ceasefire at the site of the Malaysian Airlines plane crash in eastern Ukraine after Russia’s draft was blocked by Western states. “Unfortunately, some UNSC members have reacted in their usual way as they oppose any criticism of the Ukrainian leadership,” Churkin said, adding that Lithuania, the US, and Australia began proposing inappropriate amendments to the text. In July, The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for an international investigation into the MH17 incident and demanded safe access to the site for investigators. In the wake of the decision, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced a unilateral ceasefire in a 20-kilometer (12.4-mile) area around the site of the crash. However, shelling and fighting in the area has continued, hampering the experts' work several times in the past weeks. But on Thursday Kiev suspended the truce with self-defense forces at the crash site. "The ceasefire in the plane crash zone, announced by the President of Ukraine at the request of international experts, which has been thoroughly observed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, will not be in place at the beginning of the second phase of the investigation," the Ukrainian government said. The government claims that the international mission has been halted because of “terrorists’ provocations” who “posed threats to the lives” of the recovery mission members. The suspension of the ceasefire in the MH17 crash area is a direct violation of the UN resolution, Vitaly Churkin stressed: “The truce was approved by UN Security Council resolution 2166, thus it is a clear violation of the resolution and will have very serious consequences for international inspectors' abilities to conduct the investigation when they decide to return to the area.” Before the ceasefire was cancelled, the Netherlands, who lead the international probe, announced it was halting the mission to recover victims and debris of the July 17 MH17 crash because of fighting between Ukrainian forces and rebels in the area. The international investigating team arrived at the site days after the tragic incident, delayed for security reasons. Experts are expected to resume their efforts once the situation allows. Currently, at least three areas containing the Boeing-777’s debris remain unexamined by the international mission, according to the Ukrainian government. The majority of experts will leave Ukraine until a decision on resuming the operation is made, it said in a statement.  SOURCE - RT NEWS - HERE.

What's the bet that the US aligned mob think there's some advantage in not pursuing a ceasefire.

Love how Lithuania is brown-nosing the US.  Maybe Lithuania should worry about their human trafficking problem instead of worrying about the drafting of Russia's ceasefire proposal.  

As for Australia, when you're bound up in protection/defence agreements, you're owned.  And someone like Rupert Murdoch's boy, Tony Abbott, would just love the US boot-licking that's part and parcel of that.  I'm sure he'd even think he was rather 'special'.  LOL.

MH17 - Is Tony Abbott gonna be a hero in eastern Ukraine?

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 ...] The senior defence figure, who did not wish to be named, said it was a poor idea for Australia. ''They can't secure the site,'' he said. ''It's kilometres long and wide. They could escort Australian officials and provide close protection, but this is a civil task rather than a military task and it's a terribly volatile area. ''We don't have the language skills or knowledge of the area. ''For any military deployment, you have to look at a status of forces agreement with the government and, given the area the aircraft is in, I don't think there is anyone to make that agreement with. What I've heard is the rebels don't want more than 30 investigators there.'' Mr Abbott confirmed on Saturday that 230 Australian officials would be sent to help with the recovery. This, he said, would include a small number of defence personnel. ''That is our mission, to secure the remains, to assist the investigation and to obtain justice for the victims and their loved ones,'' Mr Abbott said. ''It is, I stress, a humanitarian mission. Others can get involved if they wish in the politics of eastern Europe.'' Mr Abbott said that, despite the dangers, armed personnel are needed to secure the site. ... Source - SMH - here.

---------------------------------------------
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.

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.

G20 - Who's pulling Abbott's strings?

Ban pariah Vladimir Putin from G20, says John McCain The Australian - ‎12 hours ago‎ Up until now, Mr Abbott has said that it is too early to make any decision about whether to invite Mr Putin to the G20. Mr McCain gave strong praise to the Abbott government in its response to the shooting down of the Malaysia Airlines plane, saying he was ... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/ban-pariah-vladimir-putin-from-g20-says-john-mccain/story-e6frg6nf-1226999372624 404 ERROR - Sorry your page could not be found We could not find the page you requested. The cause may be one of the following: There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser; There's a technical issue and the page has not been properly published; The article was removed to comply with a legal order.

Ban pariah Vladimir Putin from G20, says John McCain The Australian-13 hours ago TONY Abbott should not invite Vladimir Putin to the November summit of the G20, senior US Republican senator and former presidential candidate John McCain ...  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/ban-pariah-vladimir-putin-from-g20-says-john-mccain/story-e6frg6nf-1226999372624 404 ERROR Sorry your page could not be found. We could not find the page you requested. The cause may be one of the following: There's an error in the address or link you have entered in your browser; There's a technical issue and the page has not been properly published; The article was removed to comply with a legal order.

McCain's a US Republican senator representing Arizona:

Major Aerospace and Defence Operations Among the companies taking advantage of Arizona's favorable aerospace and defence climate are: Raytheon  Honeywell  General Dynamics C4 Systems  The Boeing Company  Northrop Grumman Orbital Sciences United Technologies – includes Goodrich, Hamilton Sundstrand L3 Communications Standard Aero (MRO) Bombardier Nammo Talley Source -AZ Commerce - here.

So where's the stories?

No surprise if McCain's patting little Tony Abbott's back and vilifying Putin.

Wonder if Tony Abbott makes any decisions based on Australian interests and initiatives -- or is Abbott and his Liberal government just an extension of corporate America and its politics?

How low can Tony Abbott go?

AUSTRALIA - TONY ABBOTT'S MO

"Sometimes it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission"

SMH Article   Tony Abbott briefed Rupert Murdoch on paid parental leave before party room PUBLISHED: 11 hours 7 MINUTES AGO | UPDATE: 5 hours 50 MINUTES AGO Tony Abbott gave media proprietor Rupert Murdoch a detailed briefing on his controversial $5.5 billion paid parental leave scheme before he announced it without consulting his shadow cabinet or MPs. ... Madonna King, the author of Hockey: Not Your Average Joe, writes neither the Coalition party room nor the businesses who would pay a levy to fund the expensive scheme were consulted before it was announced in 2010. But Mr Abbott “conferred with one leading business figure, the media proprietor Rupert Murdoch, who had been in Australia the month before”. The book says Mr Abbott, a former Murdoch employee and then the new leader of the Liberal Party, “like many before him, had dinner with Murdoch, where he gave the media mogul a full rundown on the scheme – ­supplying enough detail for Murdoch to later have his Australian-based editors briefed on Abbott’s plan, which [Murdoch] considered a visionary approach to dealing with a real problem in his workforce”. “They were encouraged to support it, notwithstanding that it represented a tax impost and was skewed to be of most benefit to parents outside their middle-Australian readership,” the book says. ... The book discusses two contentious policy issues – the Green Army and the paid parental leave scheme – which it asserts involved Mr Abbott making significant policy announcements without discussing them at all, or at least in any detail, with his shadow treasurer. ... “Joe says he didn’t think too much more about it, believing it was an un-costed proposal, not an Opposition policy. At least, that was until Abbott announced it publicly.” The announcement of the policy provoked criticism from the Coalition party room (and subsequently threats that some MPs and senators might cross the floor to vote against it). It also created bad blood with big business. In response to the criticism, Mr Abbott told a joint party room ­meeting he had made a captain’s call on the policy. ‘‘Sometimes it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission,’’ he said at the time. ... Mr Hockey told Sydney radio on Wednesday he was confident big business would pay the levy to fund the parental leave scheme, after it was put to him that business was arranging its affairs so it wouldn’t be liable for the impost. “They will pay it Alan, they will pay the 1.5 per cent to pay for the paid parental leave scheme, there is no doubt about that because at the end of the day, they are the also the ­beneficiaries of it and the beneficiaries of more women going into work”, he said.  ... extracts only ... entire @... SOURCE - AFR - here.

SMH Article Tony Abbott's green army enlisting now March 2, 2014 Tony Abbott's federally funded ''green army'' will enlist 15,000 young people in environmental work, striking young workers from official dole queue figures as youth unemployment soared in the year to January to 12.4 per cent. But young people who fill the green army's ranks will be paid as little as half the minimum wage ... ... Under the legislation introduced by Environment Minister Greg Hunt on Wednesday, green army participants - who will be aged 17-24 - will work up to 30 hours a week. They will be given the chance to undergo formal training as part of their duties, but will lose their Centrelink benefits for taking part in the scheme and fall off official joblessness figures. ... The government is aiming the scheme at indigenous Australians, people with disabilities, gap-year students, graduates and the unemployed. Enlistees will do manual labour, including clearing local creeks and waterways, fencing and tree planting. Green army members will not be covered by Commonwealth workplace laws, including the Work, Health and Safety Act, the Fair Work Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. ... But ACTU president Ged Kearney said the workers should be covered by the appropriate federal workplace protections. ''This is about taking away well-paid, well-protected jobs from people and replacing them with low-paid, unsafe jobs,'' she said. ''This is not about getting people on the margins of the workforce into work, this is about providing a low-paid workforce.'' Greens MP Adam Bandt said: ''Only Tony Abbott could create a 'workforce' where the workers aren't legally workers and have no workplace rights. If a green army supervisor and a worker under their command get injured while wielding a pick or building a lookout, the supervisor will have the same safety and compensation protections as ordinary employees but the worker won't.' Source - SMH - here.

Just when you think Abbott and the Liberal party couldn't sink any lower ...

An independent blogger indicated that the Greens may oppose the PPL in senate and that without their support the Liberals won't get the legislation through [Source - here].

AUSTRALIA - Abbott government assault on press freedom

The Guardian Article Tony Abbott: media should not publish stories that 'endanger national security' Prime minister warns journalists to show 'sense of responsibility' as Coalition tries to push through tougher security laws Daniel Hurst and Paul Farrell theguardian.com, Thursday 17 July 2014 16.50 AEST ... lawyers warned that planned legislation means journalists could face jail for reporting disclosures about certain spy operations. ...National security legislation presented to the Senate on Thursday would expand the powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) and create a new offence punishable by five years in jail for “any person” who disclosed information relating to “special intelligence operations”. The person would be liable for a 10-year term if the disclosure would “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation”. Special intelligence operations are a new type of covert operation in which intelligence officers receive immunity from liability or prosecution where they may need to engage in conduct that would be otherwise unlawful. Such operations would be approved by the Asio director general or deputy director general.  [So these are infiltration operations?] ...Barns, who is also spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance and has worked for WikiLeaks, said it was “an unprecedented clause which would capture the likes of Wikileaks, the Guardian, the New York Times, and any other media organisation that reports on such material”. [Or any other individual.] The attorney general, George Brandis, rejected suggestions the government was targeting journalists and told Sky News it was not the purpose of the bill to place constraints on freedom of discussion. [SURE] Abbott, when asked about the possibility of journalists facing prosecution, said: “I think it's important that we get the balance right. “News that endangers the security of our country frankly shouldn't be fit to print and I'd ask for a sense of responsibility, a sense of national interest as well as simply of commercial interest, a sense of the long-term best interests of the country as well as the short-term best interests of creating sensation to be present right across our country including in the media.” [WTF is a 'sensation'?] The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, reacted cautiously to the reports about the potential reach of the laws. “There are suggestions that the attorney general’s amendments to national security legislation could criminalise some reporting by journalists,” Dreyfus said in a statement. “Senator Brandis has indicated that criminalising reporting of leaked national security information is not his intention. If Senator Brandis's amendments would criminalise reporting by journalists who receive intelligence information, the government will need to make changes to remove that consequence.” [Doesn't sound like Abbott will.] The Liberal senator Cory Bernardi told the National Press Club the security reforms were a “work in progress” and he believed Brandis was “very receptive to concerns of those who are libertarians, or conservative libertarians, and that don't want to see an all-pervasive government”. [SURE] “Let's go back to first principles. One, I think the Australian public and right around the world are right to be suspicious of government and their snooping ability, if I can put it like that,” Bernardi said. “Look at what's happened in Germany, with the NSA in America, across Europe there's been a lot of discussion in this area.  [What, Germany got spied on by the US?  And embarrassed getting caught out?  Oh, wait a minute:  Germany had a double-agent answering to the US and NSA had the Snowden leak.  But why put that on the press.  It's their internal problems and the press should have every right to disclose if the government and its agencies get caught with their pants down.] “Secondly, I think we're right to advocate for freedom of the press. We need to make sure the press are free to report within the constraints of what is in, I'd say, the national interest. [With constraints is not free to report.  One could argue it is not within the scope of  national interests of a democracy to have a gagged press.] “We all know that there are things the press don't report because of security concerns. We have to be reliant on that. People have gone to jail to protect their sources before in the press.” [Oh, really?  Then why not maintain the status quo?] Bernardi said national security was a critical issue and people had the right to go about their business feeling safe from clear threats, but we “just have to make sure we don't overstep the mark”.  [What business is this - covert unlawful business in aid of 'national security' and commerce, by the look of the above?  What is this, a criminal totalitarian regime?] ... ... set to face parliamentary debate after the winter recess. ... offences applied to “disclosures by any person, including participants in an SIO [special intelligence operation], other persons to whom information about an SIO has been communicated in an official capacity, and persons who are the recipients of an unauthorised disclosure of information, should they engage in any subsequent disclosure”. ...offences would not prevent a person from disclosing information to the inspector general of intelligence and security, an oversight agency. [LOL] ...The Greens senator Scott Ludlam, who raised concerns about the potential prosecution of journalists, criticised Labor for not supporting his motions to send the bill to the legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee and seek advice from the independent national security legislation monitor. [Labor are the Liberal's 'yes' men these days.] Ludlam said the government's referral to the joint committee on intelligence and security was inadequate scrutiny because the bill would be “assessed by the very same joint committee that wrote the report in the first place”. The Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm said he would oppose most of the proposals outlined in the security bill because the case for additional powers had not been made. “We do not support increasing intrusion by security agencies and other government bodies,” Leyonhjelm said. “Asio already has enough powers to do its job properly. If it feels it needs additional powers, we believe it reflects poorly on it.” Brandis told parliament the government's priority was to keep Australia safe but it was proceeding in a “measured and considered way”. [No, it's proceeding in a sneaky & autocratic way.] In a broader commentary about his philosophical approach, he told the ABC he had a “very strong predisposition against big government” and would ensure adequate safeguards as the government pursued national security laws.  [SAY 'NO' to totalitarian Liberal government.] The Guardian - here.

 ------------------------------------------
COMMENT

So the Abbott government is planning on violating the freedom of the press (which underpins the democratic system) -- in the guise of 'national security' -- but will not submit the Liberals proposed legislation to be assessed by the legal and constitutional affairs committee?  Why?  What are they hiding?

Get this, Abbott states:

as well as simply of commercial interest

So is he saying his laws -- his breach of civil liberties and press freedoms -- are about COMMERCIAL INTERESTS?

It appears that the Liberal government wants to legislate to allow government to do whatever it wants to do without being held accountable in any way. And the Labor party is standing by allowing this to happen, because they are Liberal party 'yes' men.