TPPs and all that again...

My previous post (June 18) has been echoed several times since, not by (known) reference by other commenters but by actual events. Readers might like to return and refresh their memories, but essentially I spoke of three factors –
. The US approach to “Free Trade” agreements;
. The role of Minister Tim Groser;
. The desire of US negotiators to make NZ’s Pharmac a key obstacle to achieving a FTA between NZ and US.

I have been slowly catching up with events since early June. Hey!! I is getting older and the enthusiasm and energy resources are very limited; most at this stage directed toward photography rather than current events. Then there was a very enjoyable week that recharged most of the batteries – the ones with remaining functional cells anyway… Hoosoever!

It started – in part – with this article in Granny Herald on June 15

And in reference to United States concerns over the state drug-buying agency Pharmac, which the US sees as anti-competitive, Mr Groser said the New Zealand was not about to negotiate away its public health system.
He said Pharmac was not perfect "and we are always open to suggestions of change, but we are not about to adopt a health system, via a trade negotiation, that allocates resources according to capacity to pay."

Come forward to 4 July and the wording has already started to morph –

Trade Minister Tim Groser has heaped praise on the Government's drug-buying agency, Pharmac, but still refuses to rule out possible changes to the agency as part of future free trade deals.
…
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said the free trade agreement between Australia and the US had crippled Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme, its equivalent of Pharmac.
"They didn't abolish it or its fundamentals ... but they made changes to the way it operates."
The overall effect, he said, was higher costs that were either passed on to consumers or picked up by the Government.

The question is not “What was the effect?”, but “Why was it changed?” The answer has to be that the Aus government decided it was more important to have an FTA with the US and to disregard any cost that might be incurred as a consequence of the changes. Rather than just take Russel Norman’s word for it, a quick hunt around the SMH turns up this op-ed piece from last March –

Last year the Rudd government proudly announced it had cut a new and tougher deal with the drug companies, represented by Medicines Australia, which would save the taxpayer $1.9 billion over five years.

…
…a health economist at the University of Sydney, associate professor Philip Clarke, and his colleague Edmund Fitzgerald, argue the deal still leaves our off-patent and generic drug prices much higher than they are in most developed countries. They quote the example of statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs, where the patents of the various types have expired or soon will. Statins account for about 16 per cent of the total cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
They surveyed the wholesale price of Simvastatin 40mg in 10 developed countries and found our price was the highest: 50 per cent more than the next highest country and more than four times greater than the average price.
The lowest price was in New Zealand, which stages competitive tenders between the drug companies. Its price is just a fraction of our wholesale price of $1 a tablet. And even in the US, chains such as Kmart Pharmacy sell that statin for $15 for 90 tablets.
Clarke and Fitzgerald estimate that, compared with prices in England and Canada, the Rudd government's deal with the industry lobby will cost taxpayers and consumers $1.7 billion more over its five-year term. And that's just for the statin group of drugs.

It bears repeating; given the results that Pharmac are achieving why should NZ “fix” something that is working? That question is especially a propos when the drug barons are pushing the US on the other side of the table.
And, from that too, comes the biggest of all –
Will Groser, and eventually the Jonkey himself, be able to put political reality before ideology?

Experience tells me not. The poodle, sorry Jonkey had his tummy well and truly scritched last week in his visit to the Oval Room. Now watch him return home and find all of the things that are "wrong" with Pharmac.

A quiet reflection and retrospective...

I have to say that GWB’s acknowledgement of the distinct lack of WMD’s in Iraq has a sad feeling of ennui to it; a tired feeling of “better late than never” is completely overwhelmed by the fact that he truly believed the lie. I must add my personal acknowledgement that there is no joy – on my part at least – in knowing that along with a great many others I was right all along.

The saddest aspect to the whole sorry saga is that the success of the “Bush lie” remains. And, for the comfort of those who might be thinking I am about to deny the Holocaust I explain.

The “Bush lie” is not that 9/11 never happened, nor any of the far fanciful conspiracy theories that have sprung up around and since those tragic events. The “Bush lie” swings far more on the conflation of statism, realpolitik, and religious zealotry on the part of the few.

“Statism”, at least the context in which I prefer the term –

“… the ideology of statism that holds that Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which is seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[4]

This first part of the conflation stems from, and clearly explains; the actions of al Qaeda; the actions taken by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq specifically (and militarily). The justifications, outcomes and consequences of all are not at issue but are now matters of history. What is critical is the confusion (of and by) the individual – such as Saddam, bin Laden, Bush and Cheney – with Nation.
“Realpolitik” –

“A usually expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest.”
“Governmental policies based on hard, practical considerations rather than on moral or idealistic concerns. Realpolitik is German for “the politics of reality” and is often applied to the policies of nations that consider only their own interests in dealing with other countries.”

The combination and confusion of statism and realpolitik is understandable, especially on the part of the US as these are the foundation stones of their modern Republic. Yeah, I know that will get into the noses of quite a few from the US right but please remember, as your blood pressure rises, that that statism is exactly what you are trying to fight against.

Realpolitik comes from, rather than leads to, the opportunities presented by events. There is no question that 9/11 was seen as a prime opportunity to gain considerable advantage in the national interests of the US, quite apart from the social and national impact of the attack. Those opportunities were seen as providing potential solutions to a number of perceived and quite intractable problems looming in the not too distant future. Similarly, the political motives of binLaden and al Qaeda were aimed at consolidation and confirmation of their statism by the creation of their realpolitik.

If you detect a subtle nuance here you are not wrong. The difference between the two comes from the motives of those involved. On the US side the actions and motives of individuals were undoubtably intended as for the national good. For alQaeda’s part, the motives and actions of individuals were as equally intended for personal reasons as for the good of their “State”.

It is that point which raises the third colour in the blend. I can remember very clearly the very first, short, statement made by GWB after 9/11. I can remember the very visible wince from Cheyney as Bush stated the US’s intention to proceed with a “crusade against terrorism”, corrected part way through the phrase to “war on terrorism”. The Freudian slip of “crusade” for “war” has to be accepted as unintentional. That it slipped into the line indicates that its use had likely been discussed prior and discarded as being the wrong word to use. The religious connotation did not fit.

The implied “US-Judeo-Christianity versus Islam” would immediately become a religious war. The consequence would be to exclude many, if not all, Middle Eastern states as potential allies. On the other side, the Bush slip was exactly what alQaeda wanted. It was their intention from the beginning to make 9/11 the beginning of “the greatest ever jihad against Islam’s greatest ever enemy”. The accidental and momentary slip of the tongue was more than they could have hoped for. That the intended enemy was Israel rather than the US became forgotten from the instant the first aircraft hit.

I can not be certain, and I doubt that Bush’s memoir will cover the point, whether the intensity of the religious reaction in the US to 9/11 was intended. It best remains as an “unintended consequence”; one which had only beneficial impact for those in power in the US; one which focussed public attention on “the enemy” of Islam; and a consequence which again was entirely what alQaeda had hoped for. It is this part of the “Bush lie” that remains. It is evidenced – mostly on the right to far right – as an intense and enduring fear and hatred of ALL Islam. In saying that, I realise that it is an over-simplification because it is also strongly evident to the left as well in that part of US which strongly supports Israel. That section is not Jewish, nor Israeli. There is a strong nationalist religious element to the support of Israel in realpolitik and the American electorate.

I started with the statement that the success of the “Bush lie” still remains. It is not a lie that was spoken, nor perhaps even intended by GWB himself. I have consistently put the “Bush lie” in quotes because it is not a conscious untruth, an intended misleading. It is a consequence of a whole society (intentionally? I do not think so) taking the fact, the statism, the realpolitik, and the religious zealotry as one.

On the other side, bin Laden (if he is still alive) and alQaeda have succeeded probably beyond their wildest dreams in provoking the US people into that conflation. Their success in that regard has not reached, nor suaded, more than a very few of the people of Islam. To that extent they have failed.

They have however created a “State” which carries their power. It has no boundaries. It has no recognition as a formal “State” for that reason. It needs neither of those. They have also created a realpolitik which will have a large influence on the actions of other nations into the future. The reason for alQaeda is enough to ensure its continuance into the immediate future. The very great danger in the longer term will be realised if the realpolitik of the alQaeda jihad becomes the norm of Islam. It will become so if the mirror image of the west’s conflation (statism/realpolitik/religion) can be created from the actions of western states against Islam through alQaeda.

Allah willing it shall not.

Ahmedinejad and over-reaction...

Be clear on one thing. I have even less time for Ahmedinejad than I had for GWShrub and his cohorts. With that perspective clear, I can continue.

Ahmedinejad uses fora such as the UN General Assembly in exactly the same way as America's uber-right uses Fox and the internet. That gives rise to the first difficulty. He has to try and cram as much condensed invective and hatred into his annual 15 minutes of fame.

For that reason, Ahmedinejad's criticism of the difference in public America's attitude between the stoning of a woman in Iran for adultery, and the State-sponsored murder in America of a woman arranged the death of her husband gets lost.

Had Ahmedinejad concentrated on just that one difference in attitude he might well have had far fewer delegations walk out on his speech.

Diplomacy - 1

On my bedside table these past two weeks has been (courtesy of my local library) a slim volume of speeches given by Terence O'Brien in various fora in NZ between 2002 and 2009. (I recommend it to anyone interested in why things happen the way that they do - ISBN 978-0-908772-31-5)

His name would mean little to most NZers let alone further afield, but he has been a man of some import in the relationship between NZ and the rest of the world. He is a career diplomat and has held many important posts including Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ambassador to the UN in New York, and Ambassador to the European Community in Brussels. He also held the post of President of the UN Security Council. All in all, his name would be widely recognised and respected in the arena of international diplomacy.

The book is appropriately titled "Presence of Mind; New Zealand in the World". The predominant theme, as one would expect, comes from O'Brien's personal experience and knowledge of NZ's place in the international community, and of the way that successive NZ governments have directed our involvement in world affairs.

His expression of the historic background to modern diplomacy he describes as -

In 1900 there were some 60 independent states; by 2000 there were nearly 190...

...the result is that the majority of states today (103 countries) have populations of 10 million or less. Of these, some 87 countries have populations of no more than 5 million... When the 1945 UN Charter was signed by the original 50 members, New Zealand was amongst the six smallest signatories... Going back to 1900, New Zealand was, amongst the established democracies, one of the very few that extended suffrage to include women and indigenous people, groups who were still [electorally at least] disadvantaged in other and more assertive democracies for up to half a century or longer.

Among the first of the diplomatic parameters O'Brien runs through, centres on "Values". The principles of life, liberty and core economic and social freedoms form an unprecedented structure for the (now) history of the second half of the last century. The point is made (to my surprise) that the UN has now "some 67 agreements, codes and standards". O'Brien continues -

All of these conventions derive from the UN Charter... There exists in the Charter however inherent deficiencies that in practice substantially shackle the human rights cause. First, its provisions are designed to promote, not guarantee, human rights.... The rights are not legally enforceable, and anyway the international community possesses no means for such a task.

The primary observation O'Brien makes is the persistent resistance of the "West" to "accountability for their own perceived human rights infractions". For that reason, human rights like foreign policy must "start at home" rather than being imposed from without.

Now if you think that human rights is a peculiar angle from which to start a treatise on diplomacy and foreign relations, O'Brien ties the two in this way -

The reason why human rights occupy so prominent and formal a place in international affairs is because powerful nations believe that it is in their self-interest that the issue should figure in this way. It is a precise illustration of the part power plays in shaping international politics...

Until now, I must confess, the most prominent aspects of NZ foreign policy were (in my mind) our anti-nuclear policy, our occasional involvement in (so-called) peace-keeping missions, and apparently desperate attempts at retaining a livable overseas income from the sale of our agricultural products. In that last quotation there are two words that, for me at least, have epitomised the processes of international relationships; self-interest and power.

However O'Brien describes the process of diplomacy in these terms -

It is a product of managing [the] tensions of living on this planet with others who are different, and who are either too close or too important to ignore. Modern diplomacy ... is the conduct of business between governments by peaceful means... activity to promote and protect a nation's political and economic well-being; ... entails dialogue and bargaining; ... acting upon that which is relevant to the national interest.

Which leads to -

For small countries in particular, it is a reactive business, often involving nimble improvisations in the face of intractable events. New Zealand is no exception to that rule.

Diplomacy in the twentieth century was transfigured by the revolution in communications technology and the rise of the media... .

He continues when discussing "God Defend New Zealand - From What?" -

Globalisation ... has tamed the tyranny of remoteness [of New Zealand] while retaining a moat of protection against trans-boundary risks... [such as] the spread of crime, of weapons, of drugs [the current amphetamine epidemic accepted], of illegal immigration, of health epidemics (both human and animal), and of terrorism.

As importantly, and another aspect which I had not previously considered, are the risks associated with that process; the risk of mis-assessment or incorrectly formulated response -

The absense of a well-defined concept of risk, or of a refined ability to assess risk, is therefore an occupational hazard of foreign policy making...
...
exaggeration [of risk] is part of a venerable tradition amongst foreign policy makers to vindicate chosen policies or expansion of military power or indeed both together.
...
To define risks or threats to a country's security merely, or principally, in military terms in today's world is a false image of reality. True security depends on much more than military prowess, on factors such as economic strength, competitive industry, quality of education, adequate public health, wholesome environment, social welfare and effective leadership.

I am going to leave it there for the moment. It is a convenient point to stop; I have been brewing this for the past week; it leads to the next step quite nicely.

Points to note -

As is my practice, my comments and clarifications inside of quoted portions from O'Brien are enclosed in square brackets [].
I have left out (and hence the ellypses scattered throughout the quotes) those portions of O'Brien's writing where he has given extensive descriptive and clarification of the fundamental statements I have extracted.