radiofree.asia

Category: US politics

  • A new book is aiming to show how we can have ‘life-changing’ conversations about race

    Confer Books publishes material that’s “designed to deepen our understanding of psychological, relational and emotional processes”. And on 4 March, it released a new title named, The Race Conversation: An essential guide to creating life-changing dialogue.

    This fascinating read dives into a world of new vocabulary coined to initiate conversations around race. And it seeks to discuss “the race construct” which keeps “the discomfort of race oppression out of white people’s minds and bodies”.

    Author Eugene Ellis is the director and founder of the Black, African and Asian Therapy Network (BAATN). It’s the UK’s largest independent organisation of its kind. Trained as a psychotherapist, Ellis focuses on “body-orientated therapies” such as body awareness, mindfulness, and healing. Narratives in the book explore “race and mental wellbeing” through an alternative non-verbal lens which doesn’t always involve speaking.

    Credit: Confer Books

    Ellis told The Canary:

    Since George Floyd’s killing, people with mixed families have been pressured to have [race] conversations they might not necessarily have had as a family before. A lot of people feel an ethical pull towards dismantling racism in their workplaces or institutions.

    Just last week, the reaction to Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle showed how rife racism is in Britain.

    “Being colour conscious”

    Opening the discussion with everyday racism, Ellis shows how today’s political and social climate has forced race conversations to the forefront. Whether we like it not, topics of race have become unavoidable as the media has suddenly taken an interest in pursuing race-related coverage.

    Ellis wrote:

    Talking about race had always been hard work, but, after George Floyd’s killing, it had somehow become hard work not to.

    Black Lives Matter protests took place across the world in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis police officer. Millions gathered to protest for justice, with 15-26 million people in the US alone according to the New York Times.

    On 13 March, CNN reported that Floyd’s family accepted $27m after Minneapolis city council voted to settle the lawsuit.

    The report also said:

    Chauvin has pleaded not guilty to second-degree unintentional murder and second-degree manslaughter charges. He has also pleaded not guilty to third-degree murder, which was reinstated in the case on Thursday.

    For many People of Colour (POC), the global shift to support anti-racism has been a confusing time of feeling both liberated and overwhelmed. Ellis wrote:

    I went through a phase of dislocation and mourning, even paranoia as these narratives played out on the world stage

    Credit: Confer Books
    Mindfulness

    Examining the impacts of racism, the book talks about how trauma can occur “on a mental and physical level due to just existing in a racialised society”.

    Mindfulness is a technique that involves a “body-mind” connection. Ellis said it can be used as a way to “almost retune your body” to lessen the fear that arises when speaking in race conversations.

    And in this race conversation, he wants to include everyone’s experiences. He wrote:

    I also experienced first-hand that, even though white people embody conscious and unconscious race privileges, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are free from pain and suffering.

    White guilt and suffering from racism are often shunned, but Ellis said:

    That’s a taboo area you can’t talk about but why? I genuinely believe that suffering is across the board. You can’t talk about it because the race construct says you can’t. For it [the race conversation] to move [forward] that aspect needs to come in.

    Another concept deployed in the book is how “the race construct” influences individuals to “attend to white people’s hurt and pain before the hurt and pain in people of colour”.

    “It was whiteness on display”

    It’s natural that frustration weaves its way into these conversations. In comparing ‘black rage’ and ‘white rage’, Ellis wrote:

    White rage steps forward when people of colour step forward to take control of their lives and their financial circumstances. It is predictable, brutal and unforgiving.

    People of colour understand that if they put their foot on the accelerator of their lives, they can only get so far before they run the risk of losing their reputation, their possessions or even their lives.

    The recent increase in news outlets covering topics of race has put a spotlight on racism in the US. This has also sparked people in Britain to dig deeper into racism here.

    Ellis said:

    The storming of the Capitol and the US elections… I was absolutely gripped by the whole thing. It was whiteness on display. It’s easy for us in the UK to say, ‘oh it’s not like that over here’. In the US racism is brash, big, bold and the UK is a little more subdued. There’s more of a conscious effort in the UK to keep it hidden.

    Some institutions have put in place initiatives at certain times to speak about race. In the book, Ellis refers to the “dreaded race day”. He said:

    For race or any oppression there should be conversations around that all the time. It shouldn’t be for one day; you need to reflect about it and that’s not enough time.

    Mental health services have a responsibility to engage in race conversations

    Mental health services that work with Black, Asian, Ethnic Minority and POC also have a responsibility to actively engage in race conversations.

    An article written for the Guardian addresses the problem that Black and Ethnic Minority communities “are more likely to develop mental health conditions but less likely to access counselling – or find it fit for purpose”.

    Ellis wrote about his thoughts on the problem which is “the internal discomfort of mental health professionals, and their profound feelings of not feeling safe during the race conversation”.

    In the book he mentions that POC who then seek mental health services notice this discomfort. He said:

    For a lot of people of colour, a big part of their mental health experiences are not necessarily [impacted by] their families but in society by political structures and systems of oppression. This needs to be included as a part of psychotherapy, training and counselling.

    Then if their client wants to talk about race, they will feel that the therapist is available for it and most of the time, that’s not how it feels.

    PAUSE … and breathe

    If creative language, thought-provoking theories, and an honest breakdown of how we can all participate in race conversations is what you’re after, then this is the read for you. Its forward-thinking narrative aims to normalise conversations about race, highlights the significance of historical oppression, and proposes different solutions to healing from race-related trauma.

    “PAUSE … and breathe” is noted throughout the chapters and is a respectful reminder to all that taking a break from race conversations is ok; in fact it’s healthy.

    Confer UK and Ellis are holding a live webinar specifically for psychotherapists to talk about “racial divides in our society” on 20 March, and they’ll be running another event in June as a part of their Summer Programme 2021.

    You can find other publications from this author here.

    Featured image Confer Books / Thomas Allsop via Unsplash

    By Aaliyah Harris

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Biden may have thrown the left a few bones, but he’s keeping some of Trump’s worst policies in place

    Recently elected US president Joe Biden is claiming that his administration will herald a new era following the disastrous and reactionary Trump presidency. And he’s also claiming to listen to the progressive wing in his party’s base that supported the candidacy of Democratic primary runner-up Bernie Sanders. But though he has followed through on some of these promises, he’s also left several of Trump’s worst policies completely untouched.

    We shouldn’t be surprised, though. Because, as The Canary has argued on many occasions, the Democratic Party to which he belongs has long been little more than a slightly watered-down version of the Republicans. And that leaves open the question about whether the US needs a third political force to challenge the bipartisan status quo.

    Some positive steps

    As The Canary has previously reported, Biden has taken some positive steps since entering the White House last month. He re-entered the US in the Paris climate accord, which commits the world’s leading nations to limits on carbon emissions. He also halted construction on the notorious Keystone XL pipeline, which has come under consistent criticism from environmental groups and indigenous North Americans.

    Biden has rolled back a number of Trump’s worst immigrations policies, such as the so-called “remain in Mexico” law, which forced migrants crossing the US’s southern border to wait in Mexico until their immigration case has a hearing in the US court system. And he’s reversed a number of deals with Central American nations that curtail rights for migrants from those countries to seek asylum in the US.

    But an alarming number of holdouts from the Trump era as well

    However, the Biden administration is also keeping a number of its predecessor’s worst policies in place. Amongst these is the notorious US ‘Space Force’, which commits the US to a militarization of outer space. As The Canary reported, the idea was roundly mocked at the time of its announcement. Progressive congress woman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile, pointed out in one barbed tweet how the US government seems to prioritize spendthrift military programs over meeting the needs of its own population:

    Other Trump era policies that Biden isn’t overturning include his trade deal with Canada and Mexico that replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As The Canary has previously argued, NAFTA was indeed a disaster for workers in the US and Mexico alike, but Trump’s replacement was little better and included some of NAFTA’s worst provisions. A better idea would have been to either sign a trade deal with much stronger labor accords and environmental protections or else scrap it entirely.

    Including possibly the worst of all

    Of all the policies that Biden has left intact from the Trump administration, however, the worst must surely be those relating to US-Israeli relations. Biden has not only failed to condemn, but actively praised the Trump-era US-brokered deals. These deals normalized relations between Israel and other Middle East nations without extracting any meaningful concessions from Israel, and which excluded Palestinians from the negotiating table. This included deals with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which Trump presided over in the final months of his presidency.

    We shouldn’t be surprised, though. When it comes to unconditional support for Israel, no matter how outrageous its behavior, the two major US parties are largely as bad as each other. And as The Canary has extensively reported, Israel has shown itself to be one of the most flagrant human rights violators in the world today. In addition to presiding over a brutal occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it frequently demolishes Palestinian homes, builds settlements in occupied territory in violation international law, and kills unarmed civilians including children as young as 15 months old.

    Trump only elevated the US’s aiding and abetting of Israel’s actions to a marginally worse level from an already high base of complicity. And this is just one example of how the US essentially has two right-wing parties that differ with each other only on the minutest of detail on most major issues.

    Time for a third force

    This ultimately raises the question of whether the US needs a third political force that represents socialism, human rights, ecology, and peaceful coexistence with other nations around the world. Clearly, though the Biden administration is making a few moves in the right direction, taken as a whole it is shaping up to be just one more center-right Democratic Party administration like those of his predecessors Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. And that’s not a good thing.

    Featured image via Gage Skidmore – Wikimedia Commons and pixabay

    By Peter Bolton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • What a Biden presidency means for Australia

    Joe Biden is the new President of the United States and while Donald Trump kept on claiming that the election November 2020 was ‘rigged’ and he would continue in the position of President, there was never any doubt at all Biden was going to inaugurated on 21 January 2021.

    Trump was one of the worst presidents to ever sit in the Oval Office and his exist signifies the end of a chaotic four years where the United States became a diminished player on the world stage, ceded political power to China, and developed a very unstable political culture domestically.

    Generally, when politics changes in the United States, there is an influence felt all over the world, although that a change of presidency over to the Democrats doesn’t mean the United States won’t be involved in wars all around the world, cease its arms trade to unsavoury dictators or stop acting in a way that is totally in the interests of the United States.

    But there will be a wide range of changes coming soon: a fresh look at climate change issues; restructuring economies; government having a greater role in the provision of health and social services and greater intervention in the economy—and these factors will have influence within domestic Australian politics.

    Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, with US President, Donald Trump, in Ohio.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison became too close to Trump, appearing on stage during one of Trump’s election rallies in Ohio during 2019; refusing to call him out during the insurrection event on Capitol Hill on 6 January, even though most other world leaders strongly condemned Trump, a lame duck leader during the last week of his presidency, and on the way out of office.

    Morrison seems to have lost a personal friend in the White House, and there is a new President diametrically opposite to Trump and, ideologically, quite different to the Prime Minister. What could a Biden presidency mean for Australia?

    The power of personal friendship between world leaders shouldn’t be overestimated: while it’s essential for leaders to maintain cordial relationships, countries will always act in their self-interest, their primary concern is always going to be towards their own citizens. In 1966, Liberal Party minister, Paul Hasluck, did warn the Prime Minister at the time, Harold Holt, that just because he had a good personal relationship with US President Lyndon Johnson, it didn’t mean the United States would stop acting in its own interests, even if that meant overriding matters which were in Australia’s interests, and this is a lesson that should be observed now.

    It seems the United States government is going to start flexing its international muscle again with the instalment of Biden, after the four wasted years of the Trump administration, and the fact some Republicans have shown their willingness to work with the Biden administration doesn’t bode well for Australia. Of course, there are other Republicans who will continue to be stalwarts and show loyalty to Trump, such as Lauren Boebert, who can’t understand why she shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun into Congress, or the conspiracy theorist, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who will attempt to cause as many problems as possible for the Democrats. But with Trump out of office, there people are now marginal figures.

    Morrison overplayed his hand with Trump through his unqualified support for him. Perhaps this plays into the soft cultivation of QAnon supporters and related conspiracy theorists in Australia, in the same way former Prime Minister John Howard attracted support from One Nation voters, by not admonishing Pauline Hanson when she first arrived on the political scene in the last 1990s. There are similar enablers in the Liberal and National parties—Craig Kelly, George Christensen, for example—and it’s evident these players in Australia and the United States perform their political games to play up to their respective domestic audiences.

    But it also has to be remembered Australia is not a big player on the world stage—while it is rated at number 15 in the list of world economies according to GDP, it only comprises 0.3 per cent of the world’s population: Australia does have some influence in world politics but it’s not so great. Having a good relationship with the President of the United States might result in a state dinner—as it did with Morrison in 2019—which, in turn, results in great media opportunities, or an invitation to visit Australia which, of course, results in more media and photo-opportunities. Trump is no longer the US President and Morrison’s appearances with Trump in Ohio would have been noted by the new Biden administration, but it’s difficult to know what difference this will make.

    Personal relationships might make a marginal difference. For example, two similar potential trade deals on the table with the United States: one with Australia, the other with Kazakhstan. If the US President has a close relationship with the Australian Prime Minister, and they’ve had no dealings or interactions at all with the Kazak President, that might help swing the deal towards Australia. However, that would probably be more because of the defence ties the United States has with Australia, rather than any personal relationship and, ultimately, how the geopolitical and economic interests of the United States are best served.

    There has also been speculation about the climate change policies the Biden administration will be seeking to implement, including a trade tariff with those countries not fulfilling their climate change obligations or without adequate targets to reduce carbon emissions by the year 2050.

    And if such a tariff was ever implemented, Australia would be greatly affected, and to a far greater effect when compared to the recent tariffs imposed by the Chinese government, in response to Morrison’s belligerent approach to targeting China over the outbreak of the coronavirus. An ally of Australia implementing a policy that will be far more destructive to the Australian economy, than a retaliatory action by the Chinese government: that’s the nature of geopolitics and it seems Morrison was caught out when he was happy to join Trump’s trade war with China. He didn’t have an eye on the future.

    The underreported insurrection

    The word “insurrection” is not often used in American politics but that’s exactly what occurred at Capitol Hill on 6 January, and it was akin to the storming of the Bastille in 1789. Scores of people attacking a national parliament, especially a powerful ally such as the United States, is a large news story, but it seemed to be somewhat underreported in the Australian media. Of course, it happened in a foreign country, so it’s not typically within the purview of the Australian media and, as severe as the event was—five people died and 140 were injured—it could have been far worse.

    Global media quickly labelled the event as an insurrection but the ABC hesitated and imposed an editorial ban on the word, with the ABC’s editorial policy manager Mark Maley claiming that “the term is disputed and it is not established as fact that what happened fits the definition of insurrection”. The ban was lifted several days later, before ‘insurrection’ mysteriously disappeared from its reportage.

    It’s unclear what role the Minister for Communications, Paul Fletcher, played in this process but it provided yet another example where the ABC was keen not to offend its key stakeholder, the federal government. But it also flowed through to other media outlets: most Australian mainstream media held perfunctory reporting, but it showed a lack of curiosity about a major event in the United States, and one which could have been significantly worse.

    The rioters brought the Confederate flag into the Capitol building: it would be like running the flag of the Nazis through Westminister in Britain, or the imperial Japanese war flag through Parliament House in Canberra. The rioters were also looking for members of Congress and the House of Representatives, possibly to murder them on the spot by lynching or firing squad—several of the rioters has zip ties which were clearly going to be used to bind and restrain parliamentarians.

    The Democrat representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, made some disturbing suggestions about what happened to her during the insurrection, in which she narrowly managed to avoid serious injury. A policeman was beaten to death, by the same people who were championing ‘blue lives matter’, in response to the Black Lives Matter movement: another woman was shot; and several others died afterwards from their injuries. The major factor that saved Capitol Hill from further violence was that extremist groups of this nature are a disparate group of complainers and not very competent in organisation.

    Perhaps this was the redeeming feature of the insurrection: incompetence removed the possibility of the event becoming the worst disaster in United States’ history.

    Change in Australia? Not likely

    The influence of American politics around the world can be significant, and the United States still has the largest economy and the most powerful military in the world, albeit not the largest. There have been some suggestions in Australia that a change in government in the United States will usher in changes in government at the next federal election, but there is rarely a relationship between changes of government in either country: there will be policy influences, such as economic factors and climate change issues, which could make an impact upon Australia’s federal government, but that’s where the influence will end.

    It has to be remembered that the era of the Labor government during 1983–96 largely coincided with the Reagan–Bush Republican era between 1981–93. The Liberal–National coalition’s time in office between 1996–2007 commenced at second half of the Clinton administration between 1993–2001: just because there’s a different government on the other side of the Pacific Ocean doesn’t mean a change of government is on the horizon in Australia.

    But policy influences are the key factors: the Hawke–Keating government, in particularly in economics, was closer to the governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher than they were to the Whitlam government: the Howard government, economically, was closer to the Clinton style of economics than the Fraser or Menzies governments.

    The changes that arise won’t come through in the sense of a change in government, but more in ideological terms, where incumbent parties adjust to meet the ideology of the prevailing zeitgeist. Will this mean that Australia will move to the left to follow the movement in the United States? It’s unlikely but, eventually, Morrison may find that he won’t have a choice.

    For any changes of substance do occur in Indigenous affairs, it will need to wait for a change of government. It’s obvious that Morrison is a man of privilege and has no intention making an essential change if there are no votes to be found for him.

    Both need to be looking over their shoulder, but for different reasons. It’s going to be an exciting year and, with the possibility of a federal election, it’s going to be a very interesting one.

    Support independent journalism!

    We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or gaslight you and claim the end of the world of journalism is coming soon. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little at $1.

    It helps to keep our commitment to independent journalism ticking over!

    The post What a Biden presidency means for Australia appeared first on New Politics.

    This post was originally published on New Politics.

  • What a Biden presidency means for Australia

    Joe Biden is the new President of the United States and while Donald Trump kept on claiming that the election November 2020 was ‘rigged’ and he would continue in the position of President, there was never any doubt at all Biden was going to inaugurated on 21 January 2021.

    Trump was one of the worst presidents to ever sit in the Oval Office and his exist signifies the end of a chaotic four years where the United States became a diminished player on the world stage, ceded political power to China, and developed a very unstable political culture domestically.

    Generally, when politics changes in the United States, there is an influence felt all over the world, although that a change of presidency over to the Democrats doesn’t mean the United States won’t be involved in wars all around the world, cease its arms trade to unsavoury dictators or stop acting in a way that is totally in the interests of the United States.

    But there will be a wide range of changes coming soon: a fresh look at climate change issues; restructuring economies; government having a greater role in the provision of health and social services and greater intervention in the economy—and these factors will have influence within domestic Australian politics.

    Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, with US President, Donald Trump, in Ohio.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison became too close to Trump, appearing on stage during one of Trump’s election rallies in Ohio during 2019; refusing to call him out during the insurrection event on Capitol Hill on 6 January, even though most other world leaders strongly condemned Trump, a lame duck leader during the last week of his presidency, and on the way out of office.

    Morrison seems to have lost a personal friend in the White House, and there is a new President diametrically opposite to Trump and, ideologically, quite different to the Prime Minister. What could a Biden presidency mean for Australia?

    The power of personal friendship between world leaders shouldn’t be overestimated: while it’s essential for leaders to maintain cordial relationships, countries will always act in their self-interest, their primary concern is always going to be towards their own citizens. In 1966, Liberal Party minister, Paul Hasluck, did warn the Prime Minister at the time, Harold Holt, that just because he had a good personal relationship with US President Lyndon Johnson, it didn’t mean the United States would stop acting in its own interests, even if that meant overriding matters which were in Australia’s interests, and this is a lesson that should be observed now.

    It seems the United States government is going to start flexing its international muscle again with the instalment of Biden, after the four wasted years of the Trump administration, and the fact some Republicans have shown their willingness to work with the Biden administration doesn’t bode well for Australia. Of course, there are other Republicans who will continue to be stalwarts and show loyalty to Trump, such as Lauren Boebert, who can’t understand why she shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun into Congress, or the conspiracy theorist, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who will attempt to cause as many problems as possible for the Democrats. But with Trump out of office, there people are now marginal figures.

    Morrison overplayed his hand with Trump through his unqualified support for him. Perhaps this plays into the soft cultivation of QAnon supporters and related conspiracy theorists in Australia, in the same way former Prime Minister John Howard attracted support from One Nation voters, by not admonishing Pauline Hanson when she first arrived on the political scene in the last 1990s. There are similar enablers in the Liberal and National parties—Craig Kelly, George Christensen, for example—and it’s evident these players in Australia and the United States perform their political games to play up to their respective domestic audiences.

    But it also has to be remembered Australia is not a big player on the world stage—while it is rated at number 15 in the list of world economies according to GDP, it only comprises 0.3 per cent of the world’s population: Australia does have some influence in world politics but it’s not so great. Having a good relationship with the President of the United States might result in a state dinner—as it did with Morrison in 2019—which, in turn, results in great media opportunities, or an invitation to visit Australia which, of course, results in more media and photo-opportunities. Trump is no longer the US President and Morrison’s appearances with Trump in Ohio would have been noted by the new Biden administration, but it’s difficult to know what difference this will make.

    Personal relationships might make a marginal difference. For example, two similar potential trade deals on the table with the United States: one with Australia, the other with Kazakhstan. If the US President has a close relationship with the Australian Prime Minister, and they’ve had no dealings or interactions at all with the Kazak President, that might help swing the deal towards Australia. However, that would probably be more because of the defence ties the United States has with Australia, rather than any personal relationship and, ultimately, how the geopolitical and economic interests of the United States are best served.

    There has also been speculation about the climate change policies the Biden administration will be seeking to implement, including a trade tariff with those countries not fulfilling their climate change obligations or without adequate targets to reduce carbon emissions by the year 2050.

    And if such a tariff was ever implemented, Australia would be greatly affected, and to a far greater effect when compared to the recent tariffs imposed by the Chinese government, in response to Morrison’s belligerent approach to targeting China over the outbreak of the coronavirus. An ally of Australia implementing a policy that will be far more destructive to the Australian economy, than a retaliatory action by the Chinese government: that’s the nature of geopolitics and it seems Morrison was caught out when he was happy to join Trump’s trade war with China. He didn’t have an eye on the future.

    The underreported insurrection

    The word “insurrection” is not often used in American politics but that’s exactly what occurred at Capitol Hill on 6 January, and it was akin to the storming of the Bastille in 1789. Scores of people attacking a national parliament, especially a powerful ally such as the United States, is a large news story, but it seemed to be somewhat underreported in the Australian media. Of course, it happened in a foreign country, so it’s not typically within the purview of the Australian media and, as severe as the event was—five people died and 140 were injured—it could have been far worse.

    Global media quickly labelled the event as an insurrection but the ABC hesitated and imposed an editorial ban on the word, with the ABC’s editorial policy manager Mark Maley claiming that “the term is disputed and it is not established as fact that what happened fits the definition of insurrection”. The ban was lifted several days later, before ‘insurrection’ mysteriously disappeared from its reportage.

    It’s unclear what role the Minister for Communications, Paul Fletcher, played in this process but it provided yet another example where the ABC was keen not to offend its key stakeholder, the federal government. But it also flowed through to other media outlets: most Australian mainstream media held perfunctory reporting, but it showed a lack of curiosity about a major event in the United States, and one which could have been significantly worse.

    The rioters brought the Confederate flag into the Capitol building: it would be like running the flag of the Nazis through Westminister in Britain, or the imperial Japanese war flag through Parliament House in Canberra. The rioters were also looking for members of Congress and the House of Representatives, possibly to murder them on the spot by lynching or firing squad—several of the rioters has zip ties which were clearly going to be used to bind and restrain parliamentarians.

    The Democrat representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, made some disturbing suggestions about what happened to her during the insurrection, in which she narrowly managed to avoid serious injury. A policeman was beaten to death, by the same people who were championing ‘blue lives matter’, in response to the Black Lives Matter movement: another woman was shot; and several others died afterwards from their injuries. The major factor that saved Capitol Hill from further violence was that extremist groups of this nature are a disparate group of complainers and not very competent in organisation.

    Perhaps this was the redeeming feature of the insurrection: incompetence removed the possibility of the event becoming the worst disaster in United States’ history.

    Change in Australia? Not likely

    The influence of American politics around the world can be significant, and the United States still has the largest economy and the most powerful military in the world, albeit not the largest. There have been some suggestions in Australia that a change in government in the United States will usher in changes in government at the next federal election, but there is rarely a relationship between changes of government in either country: there will be policy influences, such as economic factors and climate change issues, which could make an impact upon Australia’s federal government, but that’s where the influence will end.

    It has to be remembered that the era of the Labor government during 1983–96 largely coincided with the Reagan–Bush Republican era between 1981–93. The Liberal–National coalition’s time in office between 1996–2007 commenced at second half of the Clinton administration between 1993–2001: just because there’s a different government on the other side of the Pacific Ocean doesn’t mean a change of government is on the horizon in Australia.

    But policy influences are the key factors: the Hawke–Keating government, in particularly in economics, was closer to the governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher than they were to the Whitlam government: the Howard government, economically, was closer to the Clinton style of economics than the Fraser or Menzies governments.

    The changes that arise won’t come through in the sense of a change in government, but more in ideological terms, where incumbent parties adjust to meet the ideology of the prevailing zeitgeist. Will this mean that Australia will move to the left to follow the movement in the United States? It’s unlikely but, eventually, Morrison may find that he won’t have a choice.

    For any changes of substance do occur in Indigenous affairs, it will need to wait for a change of government. It’s obvious that Morrison is a man of privilege and has no intention making an essential change if there are no votes to be found for him.

    Both need to be looking over their shoulder, but for different reasons. It’s going to be an exciting year and, with the possibility of a federal election, it’s going to be a very interesting one.

    Support independent journalism!

    We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or gaslight you and claim the end of the world of journalism is coming soon. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little at $1.

    It helps to keep our commitment to independent journalism ticking over!

    The post What a Biden presidency means for Australia appeared first on New Politics.

    This post was originally published on New Politics.

  • The Guardian view on Xinjiang and crimes against humanity: speaking and acting | Editorial

    The US has accused China of genocide against the Uighurs, while British MPs are pressing the government to take a tougher stand

    It took a long time for leaders to notice, longer to condemn, and longer still to act. It took time for researchers to amass evidence of China’s treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang – from mass detention to forced sterilisation – given the intense security and secrecy in the north-west region. Beijing initially denied the existence of the camps, believed to have held about a million Turkic Muslims, before describing them as educational centres to tackle extremism. But the hesitation by other governments also reflected the anxiety to maintain relations with the world’s second-largest economy.

    The US, on Donald Trump’s final day in office, became the first country to declare that China is committing genocide. The administration has already targeted officials and issued a ban on any cotton or tomato products from the region. On Tuesday, the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, described a “systematic attempt to destroy Uighurs by the Chinese party-state … forced assimilation and eventual erasure”. A more cautious report from a bipartisan US Congressional commission said that China had committed crimes against humanity and “possibly” genocide.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • ‘My neighbourhood is being destroyed to pacify his supporters’: the race to complete Trump’s wall

    In his final months in office, Donald Trump has ramped up construction on his promised physical border between the US and Mexico – devastating wildlife habitats and increasing the migrant death toll

    At Sierra Vista Ranch in Arizona near the Mexican border, Troy McDaniel is warming up his helicopter. McDaniel, tall and slim in a tan jumpsuit, began taking flying lessons in the 80s, and has since logged 2,000 miles in the air. The helicopter, a cosy, two-seater Robinson R22 Alpha is considered a work vehicle and used to monitor the 640-acre ranch, but it’s clear he relishes any opportunity to fly. “We will have no fun at all,” he deadpans.

    McDaniel and his wife, Melissa Owen, bought their ranch and the 100-year-old adobe house that came with it in 2003. Years before, Owen began volunteering at the nearby Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, and fell in love with the beauty and natural diversity of the area, as well as the quiet of their tiny town. That all changed last July when construction vehicles and large machinery started “barrelling down the two-lane state road”, says Owen.

    This is not about protecting America. It’s about protecting President Trump’s own interests

    We had three different jaguars in 2016 – we haven’t seen signs of any since construction began

    As you keep building, you keep pushing people into more remote and dangerous areas

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • ‘Family detention still exists’: immigration groups warn the fight is far from over

    Advocates have hope that Biden will build better policy, but they are nervous about Obama-era officials having key roles

    Few people have been as closely involved with family separation and reunification as attorney Erika Pinheiro, one of the leaders of the immigration advocacy group Al Otro Lado.

    And though Joe Biden’s win in the presidential election puts an end to Donald Trump’s laser focus on restricting all forms of immigration, Pinheiro wants people to understand that the fight for immigrant rights in the country is far from over.

    Related: ‘Wreckage everywhere’: can Biden undo Trump’s harsh immigration policies?

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Trump’s Blackwater pardons an affront to justice, say UN experts

    Rights experts say pardon of four contractors over Iraq killings undermine humanitarian law

    Donald Trump’s pardon of four American men convicted of killing Iraqi civilians while working as contractors in 2007 violated US obligations under international law, United Nations human rights experts have said.

    Nicholas Slatten was convicted of first-degree murder and Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard were convicted of voluntary and attempted manslaughter over an incident in which US contractors opened fire in busy traffic in a Baghdad square and killed 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians.

    Related: ‘Our blood is cheaper than water’: anger in Iraq over Trump pardons

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The US Election, Sex In The Cities And Goodbye Joel

    The 2020 US Election has brought in a new President (we think) and the key question will be how an incoming Democrats administration will affect political behaviour in Australia and whether the Morrison government feels the need to do anything at all on climate change.

    Or change its economic philosophy. Or even feel the need to be more truthful with the Australian public, but we feel this is most unlikely.

    And will the media turn down the volume on Scott Morrison, as they did with Donald Trump? We don’t think so, their courage is in short supply.

    US elections are always big news around the globe but the news Trump was on the verge of eviction from the White House was blown away by the revelation Ministers Christian Porter and Alan Tudge were having affairs with their female staffers, smooching in late-night bars in Canberra, and then getting rid of these staffers when they no longer suited their purposes.

    If only these men in positions of power could keep their hands to themselves and understand that a workplace isn’t a place where we all go to have sex and drink alcohol – the world would be a much better place.

    We also report on the Queensland election result, the likely outcome for the next series of Australian elections, the bizarre decision of the ALP’s Joel Fitzgibbons to announce his resignation just when the government was on the back foot with its sexual harassment scandals – maybe that’s what his intention was all along.

    Also, it’s NAIDOC week and the government refused to fly the Aboriginal flag at Parliament House. Because nothing upsets a conservative government more than ceding an inch to Aboriginal people or engaging in symbolism that would have cost absolutely nothing.

    Music stings:

    • Betty’s Worry Or The Slab, Hunters and Collectors
    • Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick (Flying Remix), Ian Dury and The Blockheads
    • Fortunate Son, Creedence Clearwater Revival
    • Cosby Sweater, Hilltop Hoods

    Support independent journalism and get a free book!

    We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or claim the end of the world of journalism is nigh. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little at $1.

    And if you pledge $50 or more, we’ll send out a free copy of our new book, Divided Opinions, valued at $27.95.

    The post The US Election, Sex In The Cities And Goodbye Joel appeared first on New Politics.

    This post was originally published on New Politics.

  • The Right to Boycott

    “It is wrong to boycott Israel” is a bipartisan message. But is banning the boycott a violation of First Amendment rights? Also, the story of a man who is trying to boycott Israel while living under Israeli occupation.

    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Trumping Hate

    There’s been a lot of conversation about whether Donald Trump has inspired a new wave of hate in America.

    Reveal reporter Will Carless set out to understand the president’s role in hundreds of hate incidents across the country, with help from the Documenting Hate project led by ProPublica. He found a striking pattern that extended across races, religions and sexual orientation. We also examine what’s going on inside the government agency that’s supposed to be fighting discrimination, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. And we ask what it takes for bystanders in hate speech incidents to become allies.

    Don’t miss the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.