Transcript: Simon Crean's Welcome to President Hu at the Joint Sitting of Federal Parliament

Welcome to President Hu Jintao Simon Crean - Leader of the Opposition Speech Transcript - Joint sitting of Parliament House, Canberra - 24 October 2003 Mr President. I've already had the opportunity to welcome you to Australia. I now welcome you to our national Parliament. Your historic presence in this Parliament – so soon after your inauguration as President of the People's Republic of China – testifies to the importance and continuity of the China-Australia relationship. This occasion is, indeed, a celebration of continuity. On his visit to Australia four years ago, your predecessor, President Jiang Zemin, paid tribute to the pioneers of the relationship between our two great peoples. President Jiang said then: There is an old Chinese saying: when you go to the well to draw water, remember who dug the well. So it is with great pride that I note the distinguished presence in this chamber of one of those well-diggers – former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. Australians remember: His groundbreaking trip to Beijing as Leader of the Opposition in July 1971. The establishment of full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic in December 1972. And the first visit to China by an Australian Prime Minister thirty years ago this month. In this context, we look forward to the further development of the new Trade Framework Agreement signed today. We were delighted with the $25 billion liquid natural gas deal signed last year, and the prospect of more cooperation on energy security between Australia and China. These achievements are further examples of thirty years of hard work developing relations between our two countries begun by Prime Minister Whitlam and sustained by his successors. Continuing that legacy is a priority for Australia and for me. On this historic occasion, we also remember the indispensable condition on which we established this relationship – our commitment to One China. My father – another of the well-diggers – accompanied Gough Whitlam as his Treasurer on that famous first Prime Ministerial visit to China in 1973. He had the opportunity to meet with Premier Chou En-Lai – the man who brought about the historic détente in China's foreign policy with the West. My father described Premier Chou as "a man of natural dignity and obvious strength of character…..a man of reason and cultivation". Mr President, those are the qualities of leadership that we must emulate as we work together to make our region economically stronger, free from the threat of terrorism, and committed to the principles of international law and human rights. Together we face some critical security issues. Among them is the threat of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. We see a crucial role for China in progressing initiatives to ensure that North Korea turns away from this destructive path. Mr President, on behalf of the parliament and the Australian people let me also congratulate China for its recent success in manned space flight. The world has marvelled at China's recent economic development, but this stunning achievement shows your nation's technological advance as well. It symbolises the sense of purpose driving China and its leadership today, the greatness of your people, and their contribution to world civilisation. As China seeks to fulfil its destiny as a Leader in regional and international cooperation, no country is better placed to assist it and encourage it than Australia. This is something on which there is bi-partisan agreement. That is why my first overseas visit as Opposition Leader was to your country. I'm delighted that our relationship is gaining new strength and I want to turn it to our mutual advantage. Mr President, we are old friends, but there are unlimited opportunities for new partnerships. It is in the spirit of goodwill, the purpose of peace and friendship and the determination to be partners in the development of our region, that I join the Prime Minister in the warmest of welcomes to this Parliament of the people of Australia.

Bush and Hu in Canberra Part 1

Presidents Bush and Hu in Australia

Presidents Hu Jin Tao and George W Bush are in Australia today, with President Bush giving an address to a Joint Sitting of Federal Parliament this day and the Chinese President Hu tomorrow. A major event in Australias diplomatic history, to have the leaders of the two most powerful nations on Earth here to address our democratically elected representatives in Canberra (Our Bush Capital). President Hu spoke to businessmesn in Sydney NSW today and a secure President Bush thanked Australia for its assistance with Afghanistan and Iraq with an intervention by the Greens Seanators Bob Brown and a Senator Kerry Nettle.

"I want to thank the people of Australia for a gracious welcome. Five months ago your Prime Minister was a distinguished visitor of ours in Crawford, Texas at our ranch. You might remember that I called him a 'man of steel' - that is Texan for 'fair dinkum'." See a video of Bush's address to Parliament complete with the interjections and the gentlemanly response from Dubya. A robust democracy like Australia does have to put up with rude comments by some members from time to time and, as President Bush commented "I love free speech.".

Free Speech does require tollerance of opposition of oneself or organisation within wide bounds. I personally am opposed to some foreign policy of the US and such, have been accused of being un-American and anti-American, however such bold rhetoric is just not true. Those that support the Republicans in the US 100% are some of those who do not allow any criticism of their Presidents Foreign Policy, and such characterisations are used to marginalise opposition, sometimes to good effect, even if it is untrue.

President Hu is here on trade matters and I expect his speech to Parliament to cover those topics relevant to his objectives here. I'll have more to say after I've had time to read the newspapers tomorrow morning.

Free Trade: Good News and Bad New

First: The Good News

Today we have been advised by the national newspaper in Australia, The Australian: "PM's China Trade Deal Coup" on the front page. Finally progress in the field of trade with Australia's potential largest trader, we will no more details on Friday when they sign the document that formalises the "agreement to talk on trade". To think, a neo-conservative government in Australia has achieved such a relationship with a now progressive government in China. Makes me think of that old Vulcan saying, "Only Nixon could have gone to China." Referring to a previous generation during the dark period of the Cold War.

The idea of Free and Fare Trade between nations has been floating around for centuries and used by the powerful traders to enslave and disadvantage other nations. Now two former colonies of the former British Empire are negotiating in good faith towards a mutual beneficial trade agreement. Australia has a wealth of natural resources and China a huge market with skills and cheap labour. Each nation is seeking development of the hi-tech industries which include genetic-biology now, it will therefore be interesting how the two years or so of negotiations will pan out. Australia would like it all rapped up before the 2008 Peking Olympics.

"One well-placed source said last night that it put Australia "higher up the pecking order" in terms of negotiating specific deals with China". This all make the criticism from Asia, particularly the comments from Dr Mahathir Mohamad that Australia wasn't Asian enough look less seious a criticism. Also, with the currant trade negotiations going on between Australia and the US, it should give a bolster to our side. I've have maintained for sometime now that the development of a large middle-class in China and India will change the Power Structure of the world despite a dominant US position at this time. Unless the US scuttles these negotiations, the future is looking bright for "The Land Downunder".

Second: The Bad News

This morning on ABC NewsRadio I heard a report on the effect of trade tarrifs on employment, some study indicates that more workers lose their jobs from the automobile industry and othet users of steel when steel prices go up due to tarrifs on steel imports than are saved by the tarrifs in the Steel Industry. Again and again the evidence that trade tarrifs makes for an inefficient market comes forward, time and time again the evidence points to job losses in associated industries and the export of jobs overseas. It is about time the US President took a leadership position against the special interests and for the interests of the workers and cut the tarrifs and retrain those steel workers who ose their jobs in that industry. Done staright after an election it will be forgotten about by the time the 4 year cycle comes around. The same criticism applies to other of the Industrial Nations, including Europe and Japan. Australia has gone through these changes and has come up good, surely they can do it too!!!

More on this later

Comments to me at clifford.dubery@optushome.com.au

The History Wars

An Examination of the publicity and commentary surrounding "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume 1, Van Diemans Land", by Keith Widshuttle, 2002.

An extraordinary look into Academia and the battle for ideas has occured over the last 10 months or so in the Australian media, with commentary, discussions, lectures and books published all over the place taking up positions relevant to the two major political parties here in Australia.

Habeus Corpus and Terror Suspects

A Commentary on the "Monitor's View: Terror and the Constitution", Cristian Science Monitor, 4 August, 2003.

This is the first time I've come across a major US National Newspaper detailing problems with the "unlawful enemy combatant" status denying basic legal rights to US citizens captured under the War on Terrorism.

The basic rights are, "habeus corpus" and the right to an attorney, both mentioned in the US Constitution. According to Encyclopaedia Brittanica "The US Constitution guarantees that the privilage "shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Artcle 1, Section 9. Par 2

The specific case of US citizens mentioned in this article is the case in point, does declaring them unlawful enemy combatants deny them access to that right and further more, the right to representation by an attorney? I would say it doesn't, and the establishment of the Cuban base at Guatanamo needs to be wound up, it is an imperial base without the permission of the current government and represents the imprial behaviour of the US in the Americas. The US has its own islands to set up such a facility, just like Australia.

Australia Land of Freedom and Democracy

As a British Subject and Australian resident, I am waiting patiently for this nation to become a Republic. It is now old enough to behave in not only a rational and independant way, but a total, top down, bottom up national independant system with no recourse to the Privy Council or the Crown, no Governors, or Governors-General, but an elected President with a bicameral parliament that needs to be not much different than it is now (The Parliament that is)!!

In 1999 a plebisite was held here in (Australia) to (alegedly) ask the Australian Electorate whether they wanted a Republic, or not. For a discussion on this referendum see Michael Lavarch's essay.

I was one of the Republicans who voted no. My reason was fairly straight forward, the minimalist solution presented by the Australian republican Movement as the YES answer was inadequate and represented in my suspicious mind, a sell out to entrenched authority within Australia, and would have resulted in no substantial change in the "British" power structure that exists in this Great Country. The Question on the Referendum for the Repblican. side was so vague and small and minimalist that I couldn't in any good conscience vote yes, as I percieved no actual change, and a backdoor way of maintaining the establishment.

The aftermath of the referendum had the anchronistic Monarchists were claiming victory, even though they failed to put their argiment. The result was definitely a failure by the Republicans to put their argumnet, and this failure stems back to the Constitutional Conference conviened on the subject, and the rise of Richard Margavie's Model as the preferd model

Justification for War in Tatters

The aftermath of the War in Iraq is becoming clear as the US and UK as well as the Coalition of the Willing have now the task of rebuilding this nation. Australia played it's part with honour, however the idea of fighting a foreign war on behalf of an Imperial Power (US and UK) has me concerned, because the idea this bears any resemblance to self defence or "in the national interest" has confused me no end. The intervention in East Timor and the proposed Solomon Island intervention I can understand, but Iraq? The problem in Iraq was a severely disobediant Saddam Hussein. Disobedient to whom? To the United States of course, the US has assisted him in maintaining control of his nation since before Iran went native (When the US supported Shah was deposed by a popular, if fanatical, revolution. Hussein was funded and supplied in what was the Iran Iraq war in the 80's where he used his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" without any complaints from the US or UK at the time. So much for WMD concerns.

Now we are being entertained by the spectacle of false statements emanating from Whitehall for which no one is responsible, least of all the PM.

The claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Nigeria has been proven to be false and that the leaders of Australia and US and UK used information on this subject even though the intelligence community and the US Department of State were aware that the documents were false, only so many months after the event. Today the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard MP, claimed he was unaware of the caveat and that he would be investigating why such an error occured. The only problem is that such errors did not occur in isolation, and in the Australian environment, another national event called the Children Overboard Enquiry also found that false information was handed to the PM and his Minster Phillip Ruddock MP.

It appears that a pattern is emerging (see an article today on the front page of The Australian), pointing to a situation within the Public Service of these great democracies where the public servants fear contradicting the Minister or President as the case may be. In other words, the public service, at least in Westminster Systems has been severely compromised by appearing to be politicised. The appearance of independance of the Public Service is now established as a fiction in the mind of the voting public.

Unfortunately, this makes for a US situation for those same systems when a change of government occurs after an election. Not only will Ministers of the Crown have to be appointed from the Front Bench of the Government but major changes will be required over and above past standards of changes within the Public Service. All this has occured under right wing, economic rationalist, interventionist governments in teh UK/US and Australia. In the UK, you may say that they have a Labour Government, but I say that it is demonstrating a policy one would expect from the Tories. The backbench of the Government at Westminster is the default opposition today, the Tories have nothing much to say as the government is doing everything they want!!!

Thoughts on the War on Iraq 2003 to date:

Is this a Liberation or Conquest?

Like a multitude of people all over the world I have been watching on CNN, BBC World, and Skynews. I have become bored with the coverage and made an observation similar to what John Weldon had to say in The Age this morning,

"We're going to take a break here on CNN, but when we return we'll repeat the same news as we repeated all morning."

Altough the large media organisations have embedded journalists in US and British units as they move into Iraq and engage the enemy, there is a linited video worth viewing for the short attention span of us viewers, so it gets recycled again and again. There are other sources, like those brave correspondants on the wrong side of the battle, in Bagdad and Basra, who run the risk that ITV jounalist Terry Lloyd and his team experienced near Basra. Then their is a blogger within Bagdad, a mystery todate according to the press, but he can be found at www.dearraed.blogspot.com, all I can comment at this stage is, he is middle class (access to the internet) and therefore reasonably educated and realtively young compared to this 46 year old correspondant.

I would hesitate to say, that this has the potential to be a well reported war, we must always remember that the "embedded" journalists in the "Coalition of the Willing" are subject to military censorship, and the same for the journalists in Bagdad using Iraqi facilities to get their stories out, then you have the odd journalist that is independant, and will from time to time, put in a well researched report on a particular event that the Pentagon or Saddam haven't interfered with. These intrepid individuals allow us in our armchairs to make sense of a terrible event in the history of Iraq, one that promises much and has the potential to do much damage in the process.

I am greatly relieved to date that the US Military Doctrine of "Total War" has not been applied at this stage, the military commanders (General Tommy Franks) have gone out of their way to minimise casualties amongst the civilian population and even amongst the Iraqi Army, although it is early days yet. The US and its Coalition have sustained casualties and the Iraqis have captured coalition prisoners of war, which has changed the dynamics of the psychology amongst us observers. We wre lead to believe that this would be rapid invasion with a toppling of the regime and a rapid occupation. The problem is, how rapid is rapid, the military are happy with the progress of the units towards Bagdad and the air campaign, but the idea of a quick war was given to us by our politicians in Washington, London, Madrid, and Canberra. I'm afraid I do not trust them, and now chalk all the pre-war hype to propaganda, not reality. It appears the US has started with insufficient troops and really needs another division or so, which the pundits are telling us will take a couple of weeks to a month to be set up for operations. I don't believ that is the case, mainly because one US armored brigade is equivalent to 5 brigades of the Iraqi's, simply becaus eof their mobility, firepower and they are manned by professional soldiers. We Australians are patting our selves on the back for the Australian units ability to fight "well above their weight", and I am convinced the US units, and our British Units are doing the same, especially with Air Support. Therefore I don't expect the campaign to hault anytime soon.

The news from Basra is that the Water and Power has been cut to that large city, this I feel is a dangerous turn of events and indicates a siege is in the planning, this can only be starvationa nd disease for the local population, not for the Iraqi Army units that the Coalition is trying to dislodge and surrender. We need our Iraqi Civilians on our side, not Saddams, and such a move maybe counter productive. I know the Urban Warfare is difficult and dangerous for the ground troops and can degenerate to a guerilla war very rapidly, so I quess the commanders are trying to avoid that.

Australias place in this coalition can only be as a friend of the US, with our defense agreements and trade negotiations highest in our politicians minds, it can't possibly be because Iraq is a threat to Australia. We were actually trading with this nation, weat and sheep, so I doubt they would do anything against us unprovoked. Al Qaeda is another story, as the bombing of that Bali place causing the death of many Australian holidaymakers proved. That was more related to Australia's realtionship with Indonesia and, in particular the business over East Timor, which was 20 years over due in my humble opinion (Australia's military intervention in East Timor).

Let us hope and Pray that rational minds prevail and we can look forward to a Free Iraq, with all sides participating in Government and the basic freedoms made available again to all Iraqi's. even the Kurds in the North.

Any comments, please e-mail me at clifford@dubery.com

War and Rhetoric

After observing the media, both television and the press lately and their reporting of the unfortunate business in Iraq, I felt I should comment. So here goes!!

To start with, the consept put by the pro war lobby in relation to Iraq that the opposition to the war is "aiding and comforting Saddam Hussein" and is therefore irellevant to the debate as said by John Howard (PM of Australia). Such rhetoric is insulting to say the least and this one was related to an offence "Aiding and Comforting the Enemy", and it was almost like the PM insisting that all the opposition to his decision for Australia to assist the US in its fight against Iraq is working for the Enemy, namely Saddam Hussein. Such rhetoric are lies and an insult to our intelligence.

All this is reminiscent of George W Bush's now famous "You are either with us or against us" speech. Such binary thinking in this multi-polar world is peculiar to say the least. We can certainly identify our enemies, however, they vary. There is the Hamas and LFPA (Liberation Front for the Liberation of Palestine I think) in Israel that committed many terrorist attacks in the west and currently in Israel itself, in the false belief that it will get Israeli settlers out of the West Bank and establish an independant Palestinian State. I say false, because just from my observations over the last 30 years I have been aware of that conflict, nothing has been achieved to benefit the Palestinian within Israel by these criminal acts. The other terrorists are in the South American area and the Arabian Peninsula exported to Palestine and Afghanistan. Then more recently terrorism is being used in Chechnya and elsewhere, no longer sponsored by the communists, but more likely nationalists.

The Proposed War In Iraq:

A Commentary on Binary Thinking as "You are either for us or against us"

Thursday, February 13, 2003

Rationalists insist on their methods for Parliament

A commentary on "Parliament: a god-forsaken place, by Dirk Baltzy, published in the summer edition of Dissent Magazine page 15, 2002/2003