The so-called Baghdad Blogger, Salam Pax, has been tracked down by journo, Rory McCarthy. Salam (his real name) is, according to McCarthy, 'a quietly spoken, 29-year-old architect' who wishes to retain his anonymity. From next week, though, he will write fortnightly in The Guardian. Click here to read Salam's story.
Just finished reading the Pulitzer prize winning Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond and would have to give it a 5-star rating.
Diamond's basic thesis is that some societies developed while others didn't, not because of some inherent human quality that some races possess and others don't, but because of the accident of their environmental/resource endowment. So, for example, intensive farming replaces hunter-gatherer societies where there is availability of domesticable mammals and edible grain crops, and in the case of some continents (e.g. the Americas and Australia) this wasn't the case. Intensive food production means food surpluses which, in turn, permits larger settlements and the formation of armies and administrations. This facilitates conquest and colonisation, not just through the application of military force, but through the spread of disease (common to dense populations) on unsuspecting hunter-gatherer societies. There's obviously a lot more to it than this, and it's a fascinating read. If I have one minor criticism, it's a bit repetitive at times, but even this is excusable. Given the complexity of the story (an explanation of the history of humankind!), Diamond obviously seeks to reiterate his central themes so the reader does not lose the plot.
If Australia does secure a free trade agreement with the United States, then it will obviously be well placed to become a fully fledged member of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and perhaps, into the future, the extension of NAFTA, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
FTAA is a regional trade agreement of humungous proportions comprising 34 'democratic' western hemisphere nations. This means Cuba doesn't get an invite, not that Fidel Castro will be losing too much sleep over this me thinks. Venezuela is also showing little enthusiasm for the deal scheduled to take effect in 2005. Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, who is not likely to feature on Washington's christmas card list any time soon, has made it clear that so long as he is president, Venezuela's future does not lie with FTAA. In an interview with Reuters, Chavez declared that: "Venezuela is on the side of the people and we propose a new integration system that is definitely not the FTAA which, as it has been put forward, is a perverse mechanism that would be a death order for the future of the region". Chavez may find an ally in Lula da Silva, the Brazilian leader, and if he does, FTAA may falter before it really gets started. The key question is whether, given the precarious state of both these economies, either can afford to defy the hegemonic power of the US.
There was a good segment on the ramifications of a free trade agreement between Australia and the US on ABC TV's 7.30 Report tonight.
John Quiggin got to put the counter-view to Alan Oxley, a director of the Australia/US Free Trade Agreement business group (AUSTA) (the 'F' doesn't seem to make the acronym for some reason!) One point Quiggin made that should not be overlooked is that fact that this ain't no FTA -- it's a little more besides. 'Australia-US Social, Economic and Political Integration' might be a more appropriate handle. Oxley says that: "The economics of trade liberalisation tell you that the smaller economy when connected with the bigger economy will do better and I think that's what we should expect out of a free trade agreement between Australia and the US." Do better in the broad macroeconomic sense maybe, but not without some pretty significant sacrifices. Take the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS), for example, which the US claims is a 'barrier to trade'. Then there is the small matter of Australian media ownership laws and regulations about Australian content. This won't be an issue, I suppose, so long as US cultural and linguistic imperialism doesn't register in the calculation of GDP figures.
Tim Dunlop drew my attention today to the new 'get tough' policy on looters in Iraq.
According to the New York Times, the new American administrator, L. Paul Bremer has announced that US forces in Iraq will have the authority to shoot looters on sight. The article notes that how Iraqis will be informed of the 'new rules' is not yet clear, although it is believed that officials will access the US-financed radio stations to broadcast the changes. No matter how I look at this, it's difficult to see how such an action will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Preventing lawlessness is obviously important, and I have bemoaned the lack of initiative shown by the liberation forces on this issue in the past, but shooting people is an act of lawlessness in itself.
President Bush described the Australian PM as 'a man of courage' to the assembled media last week, as he publicly thanked John Howard for his support during the Iraq War.
Meanwhile, amid all the back-slapping, poor old Jean Chretien, the Canadian PM (and member of the coalition of the unwilling), was being given the proverbial cold shoulder by George W. who cancelled a state visit to Canada because, according to the White House, he was 'too busy'. Not too busy for his new buddy John Howard, it would seem, who has managed to jag a 'fast-track' route to a free trade agreement for Australia as reward for its war effort. This is likely to leave the Chileans a little bit miffed, as they were ahead of the Aussies in the queue before the War. But the Chileans do not have the benefit of a courageous leader. Chile has a seat in the UN Security Council, and it refused to cast its vote with the US on Iraq.
A thoroughly good read is to be had in The Guardian today. Simon Tisdall in his article, What Europe has to do to avoid becoming a US vassal, ponders the future for the EU (and the UN) in the wake of the reassertion of US hegemony.
Tisdall makes the point that, collectively, the EU can mount a challenge, but that a 'general geostrategic gormlessness' pervades. I shall be using this phrase all week (with due acknowledgement to Tisdall), but as I've noted in this blog before, it is only a matter of time before we see the emergence of a genuine multipolarity. IMHO, the US in living on borrowed time in Europe. It's used up all the good will that was built up post-Marshall Plan, and I think that, notwithstanding the Blair project, this whole sorry episode in Iraq will provide the impetus for the EU to become a lot ‘deeper’ as well as ‘wider’.