A world under pressure
Future shock
Turning from the internal problems of our democracy with all its confrontations, we find a world at risk from the overuse of its limited resources. How many realise that we are living in a fool's paradise?In an article from 'The Spectator' headed 'The Oil Shock to Come', James Srodes notes that the oil bonanza that has fuelled 20th century 'progress' (not to mention two world and lesser wars) is counting down to extinction within the next ten to twenty years. In a conversation with ABC reporter Monica Attard, respected commentator Gore Vidal claimed that America '… has no aims other than more oil and gas because (Secretary of State) Cheney had a study done about a year ago, that by the year 2020 the entire world would be practically out of fossil fuels. They're going to grab all of it …'
Capital required to attempt even a partial substitute will already be too little, too late, even if solar, wind or nuclear options could serve as well-and safely-which they cannot.
What is to be done? Are we prepared-socially, politically? Do we see the 'powers-that-be' really reading the 'signs of the times'? Are they campaigning on the need to cut back on consumption of non-renewable resources? No, economic growth is what wins elections. More consumption. More cars. More freeways. More air travel. More of everything!
Will governments place a tax on the usage of carbon products (oil, gas, coal, wood,) to help us to cope with a future seriously deficient in fossil fuels? Don't be silly, they will reduce taxes to popularise their campaigns. Will they lead the people to face the challenge of the potentially dangerous global competition for scarce fuel, which looms starkly ahead?
What! No plan to survive future shock? No real answers?
'Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Agency's forecast that by 2015 Australia will be…having to import 70 percent of its oil needs' highlights the problem.
Then again, as supplies dwindle, oil is likely to become very expensive, as illustrated by the Australian government's 2004 budget, which will provide '$1.50 for every dollar spent on "new frontier" exploration in Australia's offshore seabeds'-a gross profit of fifty percent even if no oil is found.
Competition for the remainder of the world's fossil fuels is likely to sharpen in a gathering gloom-and conflict. This too is evident in the East Timor anger at Australia's grab for the North-West-shelf gas field, which is nearer to East Timor than Australia. When the intricacies of international law can be used by Australia to disadvantage this impoverished country, we may gain some idea of the lengths to which other countries too might go, to protect their own critical interests.
As the American summer holiday approaches there is comment that the cost of filling their large cars could be to blame for world fuel oil prices around $40 per gallon. It is said that American elections are most sensitive to the cost of petrol, and as Australian petrol prices pass the $1 barrier, motoring groups are asking questions about the cost of excise and GST taxes. If such modest rises presently arouse such intense anxiety, what will happen when countries such as China (not to mention Third World countries) rapidly increase their consumption of gas and petrol?
The future does look 'shocking'- not good at all.
Global warming
Concerns have been heightened by the steadfast refusal of the US and Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to seriously tackle the danger to the earth's climate, posed by carbon-burning industries with their aggravation of global warming. Is the current spate of unusually severe droughts, floods, hurricanes and strange weather patterns a precursor to a much worse environment? Many are worried that so little is being done compared with the magnitude of the threat. Are the leading democratic governments really concerned about these prospects?The future is bleak. Intuitively we know that the world cannot go on as it is. It is the responsibility of governments to rally the people's support for logical responses to the dangers of the future. To do that, governments need the wholeheartedly support of the people-a catch 22 situation. Clearly we need a partnership attitude between government and people-the fruit of a real democracy, which, unfortunately, we don't yet have.
We have two rival powers operating in our political system. One is the power of the people at election time. The other is the power of the elected (party) government between elections. This confusion of objectives ensures a lowest common denominator of government, which is unable to appropriately address the problems of the present, let alone those of the future.
We are confused by the absence of information and political education, and conned at election time by policies and promises of immediate advantage, which effectively blind us to the future realities. Instead of being challenged to face the future, we are 'de-moralised' by government confusion and unable to face up to the hard choices that will require many sacrifices of immediate gratification. Instead, governments assign to the public the shallowest of motives and smugly comply with the assumed wishes of the people, a self-fulfilling prophecy, in the interests of continuing in power. Party-led oppositions are caught up in the same 'rat-race'; the pursuit of power. So-called democratic government may well be creating more problems than it can solve, by neglecting to involve (and create) a responsible populace. The future does not look good; and time is running out-fast.
Another scarce resource
Alarm at continuing diminished rainfall and the serious deterioration in levels in water supplies has led to a combined Federal/State Government plan of action in Australia. We are not alone. The need is obvious and not too soon.Increased costs to consumers as an encouragement to reduce consumption, is a necessary step. Replacement of open irrigation channels with pipes will be a necessary, but expensive investment. One wonders if there can be a real future for spray irrigation.
World Trade
The protesters' fracas in Seattle USA, in late 1999, drew attention to the World Trade Organisation's round of world trade talks to increase free trade. The pressure for freer trade comes from big business and finance; and from developing nations wishing to gain access to first world markets. Economic rationalisation is the aim and rhetoric of big business, seeking to cope with overwhelming competition from the third world in primary products and very cheap (and good) manufactured products. As a result the living standards of third world countries, terrible by first world standards, are improving with the expanded trade; although exploitation of child (and prison labour) is a worrying factor in the low price of imports.However that may be, the impact of a long-term trend to 'a level playing field' for first world labour forces, is like a tidal wave. The opening gambit of future shock is now with us in the shape of the globalisation of world trade, while hard-fought-for conditions of labour are under constant threat. Jobs are vanishing fast, despite deceptive job statistics that count workers with few working hours as employed. Gregory Hywood reports :
70 percent of new jobs growth in the past decade has been casual', while, 'the proportion of full-time workers in Australia has fallen from 89 percent to 69 percent in three decades; service industries employ 75 percent of people, compared with less than 60 per cent 30 years ago;As a player in the global scene, Australia's clout is small. The hope of free trade with America brings to mind the story of the discovery of the principle of the 'lever'. A couple of primitive cavemen, one little and the other big were returning from the hunt. Hoisting the 'kill' onto a pole between them, the big guy lost no time in discovering that by bumping the load nearer to the little guy his end became lighter. Suffice to say the big guy does not here represent Australia. There is a different story with East Timor and its Northwest shelf gas deposits!
Environmentalists fear that environmental concerns will be ignored in the free-trade agenda of the WTO, driven as it is by economic rationalists in the first world and the unfettered economic drive of oligarchic interests in the third world. Minimum demands expected of Australia include relaxation of foreign investment controls and quarantine regulations, with possibly destructive effect on our economic capacity and environment especially, in the latter case, agricultural crops. Again, environmentalists are quite clear that there is no room on this planet, with its finite resources, for all of the world's population to live as the first world does. This scenario points to serious conflict. If economic rationalists ever think of this in the night, they must be quickly putting the thought out of their minds.
Australia's Minister for Trade was upset by the confrontation of the protesters. Does he have any understanding of the serious concerns of many? Can there be democracy without disagreement when people are seriously concerned? How willing is the government to hear? The thought that national governments are being driven to assigning the right to control the economic life of their own countries to the WTO is a matter of serious concern. Is the demise of national sovereignty a quick road to economic slavery? World democratic government may be an elusive dream but is also likely to become a vital necessity.
Dislocation of life in this era of globalisation may be worse than during the industrial revolution. We will all be affected. The new era will severely test every one in the years to come, and could shatter any lingering confidence in the democracy we know. Will we cope? A reduction in the standard of living of the 'wealthy West' appears to be inevitable.
The confusion, and helplessness, which has arisen is well illustrated by the words of Bill Clinton regarding the protesters. His first words were: 'We should have the leaders of the protesters take part in the talks.' That went down like a lead balloon with the delegates. His next words were a denunciation of the violence. Fair enough, but there was no further mention of any protesters' involvement in the talks.
Third world delegates are already digging in to exclude all matters with regard to labour conditions or environment protection. It is clear that the increasing conflict of interests in the world is going to be a major test for humankind. It has been said that war is the failure of politics. Will world politics have any chance of coping? There is a lot of hard work ahead to resolve the escalating problems created by the worldwide demand for a better life in a globalised economy. Will it indeed be better? Many things will have to change, including what we value in life. Our over emphasis on material wellbeing must give way to a higher value being placed on social and spiritual aspirations.
Do we have an adequate vision for the future? We need radical action. The future does not look good at all.
'Free trade' and America
After long talks at all levels, an agreement has been signed in America, passed in the House of Representatives and is due to be presented to the Senate.Democracy or 'dollocracy'?
While massive problems loom ahead for the world, we are kept in the dark, mesmerised by 'bread' (cheap market goods) and 'circuses' (sport and entertainment). National governments are fast losing any power to resolve the future reasonably in favour of their people. Government is preoccupied with short-term political success and the people are discouraged from seeing the trend to a troubled future. 'The economy is in good shape', ministers say. Is it? Is having a boom, with a public blowout on consumer goods, cars, furnishings and oversized homes, an economy in good shape? Does what cheers the government cheer everyone? Surely the only good economy is one in which all who can work are well employed. The government gloats over our economy-'retail sales are up.' So is our ballooning debt, and bankruptcies. We are supposed to work harder, be more competitive, or perhaps smarter. Can we do it?'Unemployment is down'! But many are working reduced hours, with consequent poverty. Total hours worked (i.e. paid for) have also fallen, exploding the myth of low unemployment.
Are governments in control; or just pretending? We now see those who have subverted the power of the people, becoming slaves of the forces of world finance and business; staying in power by secrecy and manipulation of the facts.
Money power dominates elections, and now the enormous international money that floods in and out of our borders, is dominating our exchange rate, and our government. As a nation we are at the mercy of speculative money flows that have little to do with investment, jobs or wealth production. It was cynically (and justifiably?) commented of America fifty years ago that the nation's investment was the by-product of a casino-the stock exchange. Has anything really changed?
We have embraced deregulation of the dollar. Maybe we had to. We were probably at the mercy of the developing world anyway. We have comparatively high living costs, and we face low overseas costs of production. With tariff barriers down, our shops are full of a vast variety of cheap imports, often as good as or better than we can produce, contributing to a low inflation rate. Government is pleased with the low inflation, but we are living in a bubble economy, and a society loaded with problems. Where are the future jobs? Many of the young have had to turn to the 'hospitality' industry, as many traditional occupational outlets have dried up. Perhaps there are hidden pitfalls for the young in these occupations. Meanwhile, we are increasingly dependent on the tourist dollar.
At the World Economic Forum (WEF) conference, China's representative was puzzled, wondering why the West wants to 'engage ' with China; to open up the Chinese market to our exports. He made the comment: 'Why, we'll kill you, with our so-low labour costs.' We are in big trouble. Let's not fool ourselves with the booming retail sales, based on the cheap imports-and private debt.
We are facing the flood-the judgment on our self-indulgent ways, which have matured under the protection of our trade, immigration, and defence barriers. Life ahead could be grim. Will we cope?
We should realise that disasters do not fail to occur just because we don't expect them. A thing never to be forgotten is a photo of two children playing on an English beach. Printed in a 1915 English magazine over the caption 'The Halcyon Days of 1911', it highlighted the unawareness that preceded the catastrophe of the First World War. Unawareness and unpreparedness will not make our future go away either. It is coming-as relentlessly as a hitman on a contract.
S11 and global democracy
A placard, in a wild S11 demonstration, stated:'GLOBAL DEMOCRACY, NOT GLOBAL FREE TRADE'
Presumably S11 protestors do not realise that global democracy will mean free trade. The globalisation of business hurts us, but benefits millions less well off, and many more are waiting in the wings. Global business is simply jumping the gun; breaking down the economic advantages we gained through imperial conquest, and maintained by our isolation and naval power. There's no way we can protect our privileged lives forever. As David Kinley, Director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law (Monash University) has pointed out: 'Globalisation is being reinforced by facility in movement-in people (air travel), information (the internet), finance (electronic transfers), and commerce (digitally certified payments).' Meanwhile, governments are looking increasingly helpless in the face of far-reaching global change.
We know the S11 fight is really about labour conditions and big world business, which is judged to be ripping off the poor in third world countries. That is the basis of their 'righteous' anger. In reality, however, world business is pre-empting international politics by raising the trade possibilities of the (far) less-well-off in the world, raising their standards of living by what might be described as 'trade democracy'.
Much is wrong, including the rising industrial smog over Southern Asia. It isn't marvellous, but business is operating in a world democratic vacuum. It is a matter for sober reflection that it has taken a long time for any sort of democracy to prevail-anywhere. First world countries have come nowhere near establishing perfect democracies. Party and factional politics dominate everywhere.
Is globalisation devouring democracy? Is there any to devour? With such limited public input we really have no democracy. It is our comparative wealth and complacency that is being devoured-very swiftly. The elusive vision of democracy as defined by Abraham Lincoln-rule by the people-with, at least, genuine representative government, is receding further and further away from us as the pressures of globalisation take hold.
Philip Adams, in a Radio National interview on 22 January 2002 was given a glaring example by Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation for Science and Technology in Dehra Dun, India, and outspoken critic of what is termed 'biopiracy.' 'Western corporations', she said 'are stealing centuries of collective knowledge and innovation carried out by third world women. Corporations that have [acquired] broad patents on crops such as cotton, soya bean and mustard are suing farmers for saving seed, and hiring detective agencies to find out if farmers have saved seed or shared it with neighbours. Sharing and exchange, … has been redefined as a crime.' Farmers in India describe the inaction of their 'sleepy' government as 'dead democracy', and call their new grassroots movement a living democracy. Perhaps they are showing us the way.
We must face the future-there is no escape. At a time when an active, intelligent involvement of the people in self-government is so much needed, we are no closer to the reformation of our democracy, than we were years ago. Why is it that in all other professional disciplines there is keen pursuit of necessary change, while our political institutions continue in protected sterility? If 'power to the people' has been so elusive within our democracies, what prospect can there possibly be for the democratic hope to survive in the maelstrom of global forces, let alone for the people to control them?
If we are to find a solution to the future, with all its threat to the wellbeing of humankind, we need to resolve the question of why democracy is so weak at creating a strong and well-guided society. Where are we failing? Is there a fundamental cause we have missed? Why is it that democracy, as we know it, enables such calm elections but such troubled government-with so much difficulty in leading to satisfactory solutions? So many seem to know what's good for us; so many are ambitious to represent us in the places of power, but who is willing to tap into the combined wisdom of the people? To face the future we need real democracy, in which government and people are as one. If we cannot even achieve that in our advanced democracies what real hope is there for the future.
World democracy?
Democracy demands self-restraint, even unselfishness. World democracy, (if ever the world could handle such a concept), would mean a denial of self-interest of a completely new dimension for first world countries. Wherever there is natural wealth, moves to gain and control it are the normal reaction of human nature. Many separatist movements reflect this drive. Democratic governments are eternally seeking to resolve problems of this kind-internally. The notion that this might be accomplished on a world basis presents problems of a far different order. Free trade is no doubt a step in the right direction, but its difficulties of resolution are currently obvious, and underline the heavy difficulties that face the world's eventual advance.The present difficulties of the UN as a world governing body are equally evident. The US declaration that the UN was irrelevant in the 'crisis' over Iraq was merely another facet of its determination that its national interest would never submit to the controls of a world democratic government. No more would the other members of the Security Council.
Consider this: With the present world population just on six billion, a world parliament of (say) 6000 members, and a representative democracy, membership of the world parliament would be roughly as follows:
China 1250, India 1000, USA 300, Indonesia220, Brazil 175, Russia 150, Pakistan 140, UK 60 and, Australia 20.
Anyone for world democracy? The fair go? We do believe in democracy. Yes?
World Government
The world needs World Government. It was suggested as long ago as 1945, by Wendell Willkie, the Republican nominee for the 1940 American presidential election, but the League of Nations failed, and now the United Nations fights a losing battle, due to the intransigence of (some) national governments. The UN is far too preoccupied with these difficulties to have any chance of peacefully resolving all the world's multitude of problems, and being far too weak, without America's whole-hearted support, to enforce international law.America has stood back from fully supporting the UN, both financially and morally, being unwilling to submit to an organisation in which it cannot command a majority in its Assembly, or control the Security Council. Again, it refuses to endorse the International Court in the fear that one of its own soldiers, for example, might have to appear and answer a charge by a world body-even if heard in America (as was apparently possible). America's abstinence robs the Court of the significant authority needed to improve international order and justice.
We have a troubled world. Until the UN can create world government, world democracy must remain a distant dream. The idea might just vanish in the flames of world anarchy, when the powerful nations fight to the death for control of the dwindling stock of fossil fuels.