anthony js

Saturday, July 30, 2005

The late-July update

Semester Two at UQ has begun, starting back on Monday, the 25th. I suppose I am happy to be back, though I really enjoyed the holidays. Melbourne being the highlight, of course.


Semester Two Courses:

Political Science:

Great Issues of International Relations
Terrorism and Insurgency in World Politics
Political Leadership

Elective:

Philosophy: Social Ethics


I was reluctant to choose Terrorism and Insurgency, mainly because my views on terrorism could easily clash with the lecturer's/tutors' views on the subject, and I was afraid of getting a pro-war, right-wing lecturer. My lecturer for Foreign Policies of the Great Powers in Semester One was too openly biased (in favour of a school of thought which which I disagree). That was off-putting. However, I came to the conclusion that terrorism and insurgency are issues too relevant to ignore. I believe the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated and used as a tool for unnecessary fear. Yet, it is (and will remain) a subject at the forefront of political conversation. Hence, I chose it.

Prior to the holidays, I was seriously considering parting from my philosophy studies. This was because I felt very unconfident with it, and as though everyone else was miles ahead in their grasp and knowledge of philosophers and their theories. However, after receiving a 6 for Continental Philosophy (a major shock), I decided to continue with it. Philosophy is, after all, very important and a wonderful thing to delve into (though it does have the tendency to become complex and frustrating).
________________________________

I was at Southbank on Wednesday night to see fifteen short films: finalists in the Short Film Competition for Brisbane's film festival. I'm glad I went. There were a lot of people there too. I wish I had the necessary facilities and resources to make a film. My ideas come and they go.
________________________________

"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington"
- Senator Hillary Clinton

posted by Anthony Stoddart @ 8:56 AM  

11 Comments:

  • At Mon Aug 01, 06:31:00 PM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    It was part of the Brisbane Film Festival, which is still going on. The film festival is on in Melbourne too, right? It was in Sydney, too, recently.

    They were made by Australians. I think it was a national competition. Anyone was able to enter. So, in that sense, they were amateur films. Really enjoyable.

     

  • At Tue Aug 02, 01:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    And it was held at Southbank.

     

  • At Sat Aug 27, 12:52:00 PM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    Summary

    1. The ‘Real Irish Republican Army’ (RIRA) is a break-away group of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). The RIRA has been linked by police to approximately thirty terrorist attacks/attempted attacks since its establishment in November, 1997. The group has not committed any significant attacks since mid-2003, though remains in existence and has threatened to remain active in the face of the Provisional IRA’s historic stand-down. The danger it poses sits at a reduced level, however the intelligence community believes the actions of the RIRA must continue to be investigated and closely monitored (if possible).

    Background

    2. The RIRA was formed in November 1997 after a split in the PIRA as a result of internal dispute between key members. The disagreements were related to the PIRA’s decision to call a ceasefire, and the adoption by Irish Republican Party Sinn Fein of the ‘Mitchell Principles’ – a peaceful approach to independence in Northern Ireland. Shortly after a heated meeting of PIRA executives in late-1997 (in which twelve men walked out), a statement was released by the newly-formed RIRA vowing a return to military-style attacks.

    3. The RIRA is based primarily in rural border regions of Northern Ireland, but also in cities Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Following the original PIRA format, the RIRA’s activists operate in small, geographically-connected cells. Whilst this model proved a success for the PIRA, the RIRA has been vulnerable to much police infiltration. Authorities believe the group is allied with the Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA) (established in 1987 after a similar split with the Provisionals).

    4. The RIRA has mainly used the methodology of conventional explosives; mortar attacks; and so-called ‘booby-traps’ in its activities. Frequent targets have included civilians and police stations.

    Objectives

    5. Through its political violence, the RIRA aims to overthrow the British rule and presence in Northern Ireland in order to establish a 32-county Irish Republic. This vision is inspired by the rebellion movement of Easter 1916.


    Leadership & Membership

    6. Bringing about the gradual weakening of the RIRA has been the jailing of some prominent members: Liam Campbell, RIRA Director of Operations, this year lost an appeal against his eight-year jail sentence; notoriously dangerous Michael McKevitt was jailed in 2003 (22 years) for directing terror; and Colm Murphy was jailed for 12 years in 2001 in connection with the 1998 Omagh bombing. Additionally, five active RIRA terrorists were jailed in 2003.

    7. It is estimated that the RIRA consists of somewhere between 100 to 150 activists. Many derive from the PIRA, the CIRA, or the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA). The intelligence community believes younger members are being lured by monetary rewards.

    8. The RIRA has been damaged by the freezing of its assets; the banning of its fundraisers; and successful police interventions. However, the Irish Minister for Justice announced the RIRA’s regrouping in 2004. As well, it is not unlikely, that the recent steps towards peace (the PIRA’s stand-down) may anger members of the RIRA, provoking a new attack on either civilians or law officials.

    Terrorist Activities

    9. Many planned attacks by the RIRA have failed or been intercepted. Its more successful attacks since establishment include:

    • the July 1998 mortar attack on a Newry police station
    • the 1 August 1998 bomb explosion at Banbridge shopping centre, injuring 30
    • the 15 August 1998 bomb attack on in Omagh, killing 29
    • the September 2000 Rocket Propelled Grenade attack on the Mi6 headquarters in London
    • the non-fatal August 2001 explosion in Ealing Broadway, London
    • the August 2002 booby trap explosion in Londonderry, killing a civilian worker

    Conclusion

    10. Despite the authorities’ successes, the intelligence community assesses that the RIRA continues to exist and harbour activists desiring the subversion of British presence through violence. Its 2004 regrouping, and recent events aiding the Peace Process may motivate another major attack by the group. This possibility means that a threat to the civilian population in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom exists. This has been compiled by information from reliable intelligence sources.

    Sources

    Jane’s World Insurgency (www.4.janes.com)
    Factiva Database (on-line Cybrary)
    Sinn Fein (www.sinnfein.org)

     

  • At Tue Aug 30, 04:58:00 PM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At Thu Sep 01, 06:44:00 PM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At Sat Sep 03, 02:06:00 PM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At Mon Sep 05, 03:03:00 PM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At Mon Sep 05, 06:58:00 PM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At Mon Sep 05, 06:59:00 PM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    Feminism in International Relations
     Though first entering prominence in the 1970s, ‘second-wave’ feminism was not visible in IR until the late 1980s: the Women and International Relations conference, London (1988)
     The main feminist debates in IR revolve around the question of identity; the definition of the female role in a male-dominated domain
     There are four images of women in IR:
    • Exceptional women: eg. US Secretary of State Rice, Aung San Suu Kyi;
    • Victims: of discrimination / of the identity conflict;
    • Survivors: of violence (particularly those who openly bring such issues to light); and
    • Actors: Women openly protesting/supporting certain social issues/policies associated with IR.

    Feminist Approaches to Military Issues
    • Liberals believe women should be equal to and carry the same duties as men in all aspects of life, including military activity;
    • Pacifists believe in countering masculine violence through advocating maternalistic/feminist ideals… The achievement of equality should not require women to be pseudo-men;
    • Anti-militarists consider the human consequences of war, and see a connection between war and masculinity.

    Where are the women?
    This important question was first asked by feminist writer, Cynthia Enloe, in 1989. Pettman writes that, in asking this, women can be recognised and made visible in the roles they play within IR. It can, however, provoke varying responses. One such response may acknowledge only the very few women who climbed their ways to powerful roles, eg. Thatcher (Is male behaviour necessary for a woman with political power/climbing the political ladder?). Another response may highlight the presence of women in many different IR roles (in which we had perhaps not expected them), whilst another may focus on the lack of women in various fields of IR.____________

    Concerning: women in politics, they are more likely to be found in non-governmental roles, or helping to invigorate government-detached social movements, than they are to be found in the formal political process or as influential bureaucrats. Women in war are associated more with the domestic domain, or as those who need protecting (as opposed to those who are the protectors), writes Pettman (Should the liberal view of women and the military be advocated more in the modern day?)_______________

    The question, ‘where are the women?’, reveals the presence of gender relations in IR. Traditionally (and even subconsciously in some cases), society and political theory has isolated women from the ability to reason, linking them with a world of emotion/passion, making them unreliable citizens. Social relations, including those in the modern age, are controlled by the gender division. Pettman argues that despite the appearance of global political relations as gender-neutral, they help to broaden and spread the ideals/knowledge/experiences of the elite male. (Has the issue of women’s rights become neglected as a result of new global political priorities? What can feminist thinking – particularly attitudes to war – contribute to IR?)

     

  • At Tue Sep 06, 11:48:00 AM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     

  • At Thu Sep 08, 03:35:00 PM, Blogger Anthony Stoddart said…

    Despite being, arguably, one of America’s least-memorable modern presidents, James Earl Carter is, nonetheless, an important figure in world political history and held a fascinating leadership style. The Carter presidency struck challenging circumstances. It was, perhaps, the inexperience of the new Democratic administration and its often-hesitant and unconfident approach to problems that led to the barrage of criticism and dissatisfaction from around the United States. The Carter Presidency may not live as the most memorable, but it set an all-too-easily forgotten example of honesty-in-office. Today, Carter has proven himself to be a true humanitarian dedicated to global good. It is, however, his one-term presidency which has been the subject of various works by academics, historians and colleagues on the former US leader. Two of these works include Jimmy Carter’s own publication, Keeping Faith (1982), and Peter Bourne’s Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Autobiography from Plains to Post-Presidency (1997).

    Peter Bourne was the first member of the Carters’ inner-circle to write a full-scale biography of the former president. English, a licensed psychiatrist, and liberal in his political views, Bourne left his career as an academic at the Emory University Medical School to join the Carters in 1972, when Jimmy was Governor of Georgia, in the capacity of a health care expert (Clendinen 1997; Thomas 1997). He was one of the first people to urge Carter to run for president. After the defeat of Gerald Ford, Bourne became a personal health care assistant to President Carter, with an office in the ‘west wing’ of the White House and direct access to the President (Clendinen 1997; Thomas 1997; Carter 1982: 46).

    The very point that Bourne is a long-time friend of Jimmy Carter’s immediately provokes one to assume that Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Post Presidency is one-sided, leaning to an imbalanced and partisan benevolence and generosity in the assessment of the former president. However, once the first few sections of the book have been covered, one discovers that Bourne is indeed capable of being critical of President Carter and the downfalls of his administration. Bourne covers the ground expected of a comprehensive autobiography: Carter’s religious, privileged upbringing in a racist Georgia; his political socialisation; his early political years of mixed success; his marriage and children; his years as the race-tolerant Georgian governor; the rise to the turbulent White House years; and his success as a post-presidential humanitarian. It is true to say, though, that the overall conclusion of Jimmy Carter that Bourne draws is the sort one would expect from a close ally and loyalist. This should not, however, detract from the point that, generally, his approach is balanced and fair. He has sought to write a comprehensive account of Jimmy Carter’s personal and political life, and done so with a degree of success. He does not set out to either fully praise or fully criticise Carter, but does (eventually) demonstrate that he is capable of writing from a mostly-balanced perspective. His book contains two consistent aspects: Carter’s faith and Carter’s standing as a statesman for global good, both during and since the presidency.

    In a review of Bourne’s publication in The New York Times, Dudley Clendinen (1997) is both critical of and attracted to Bourne’s approach. According to Clendinen, Bourne elaborates too much on Carter’s “relationship to God and his relentless crusade to do right as he sees it” (Clendinen 1997). And in his overall impression of the book, he “gets the sense that Peter Bourne has written the biography of a man who once was President, but now, he thinks, may win the Nobel Peace Prize” (Clendinen 1997). Of course, Carter would indeed go on to win the honour in 2002. It may well be fair to assume that Bourne would like his readers to reach this conclusion, and to recognise Jimmy Carter as a truly well-intentioned hard worker who deeply desires a universal harmony (as unrealistic and utopian a desire as this may be).

    Jimmy Carter’s Keeping Faith was published in 1982, the year after he left office. What immediately stands out about this book is the fact that it does not fit into the conventional definition of an autobiography. Carter writes only about his time as president. He does not cover his childhood or his rise in American politics. So in that sense, it is not an autobiography, but more an account of the thirty-ninth presidency in Carter’s own words. Whether Jimmy Carter is cast in a positive or negative light in this book is a question that need not be asked. Carter’s discussion of childhood and family life is limited. Though he does make clear how much he values those who surrounded him, writing, “there is no doubt that the members of my family helped me be a better President” (Carter 1982: 34). On almost every page, Carter supplies us with extracts from his diary, written on the very days the events he discusses took place. As a result, a quite unique insight into the presidency emerges, and so too does an honesty not often seen in first-person accounts. Furthermore, his book carries exceptional description of the way White House decisions are made and the way in which resolutions were reached in important processes (i.e. The Camp David Accords, the Iranian Hostage Crisis). Though this book tries mostly to explain and defend the presidential actions of the author, I should acknowledge that Jimmy Carter does recognise his mistakes and his failures. He makes no effort to avoid them, though he does attempt, and expectedly so, to enlighten his readers as to why he made certain decisions and chose certain courses of action.

    The books carry more similarities than differences, perhaps as a result of their authors possessing similar opinions and stances. They carry a certain sadness and bittersweet nostalgia. I found it difficult not to feel as though both authors long for ‘what might have been’ had the former president not struck such a turbulent period of time in which to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Bourne writes with an evident pride in being both a personal friend of his subject and a man with first-hand experiences of White House life. Jimmy Carter writes like an ex-president typically does: with patriotic language and never-ending praise for America, along with regular references to God and faith. Generally, both books are based around an historical-chronological framework (though Keeping Faith has the tendency to occasionally jump back and forward). I was surprised by the absence of any real psychoanalysis of Carter by Bourne, particularly considering his career in psychiatry.

    Jimmy Carter is remembered for his deep religious convictions. Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, described him as “part engineer and part moralist” (Bell 1980: 1). Carter’s training as a naval officer, he believed, influenced him to “see issues as problems to be solved” (Bell 1980: 3), as opposed to problems merely to be tolerated. This was indicative of his ‘engineer’ characteristic. At the same time, Brzezinski saw Carter as a moralist: there always exists a right solution to a problem, and “it can be deduced from the principles made known by revelation or intuition” (Bell 1980: 3). As a boy, and with his family belonging to the Plains Baptist Church, young Jimmy Carter took the importance of religion very seriously (as he did most things in life). Carter’s religious development took place within “Christian fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist form, which characteristically proposes a literal view of the Bible” (Bell 1980: 3) By age ten, his dedication to Bible study had achieved a knowledge of the Holy Land surpassing his knowledge of the United States (Bourne 1997: 32).

    A major influence on Jimmy Carter – perhaps even the primary influence – was his high-school teacher, Julia Coleman. Bourne dedicates a significant portion of his book to exploring this relationship, and rightly so: it supplies an important insight into Carter’s psychological shaping. Coleman was a well-known, well-respected member of the Plains community who “saw her teaching responsibilities as including the transmission of Christian values” (Bourne 1997: 39). She had her students memorise and recite sections of the Bible that “took on the significance of philosophical underpinnings for how to live one’s life in a successful and happy way” (Bourne 1997: 39).When Carter was thirteen, Coleman recommended to him Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace. Mainly covering Napoleon’s doomed invasion of Russia, the book highlights the power of the people in determining the future. Bourne writes that it helped in shaping “the way Jimmy Carter would see the relationship between the governors and the governed” (Bourne 1997: 41). Carter quoted Julia Coleman in his two most important speeches. In his inauguration speech (1977) and his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (2002), he included her phrase: “We must adjust to changing times and still hold to unchanging principles” (Nobel Lecture 2002; Jimmy Carter Library 2001).

    During the 1976 presidential campaign against incumbent president Gerald Ford, Carter ran with the theme of ‘competence and compassion’ (Dumbrell 1993: 1). Addressing a crowd in Indiana, Carter said, “There are only two basic things we need in government. One is competence… And the other component part I think would be compassion: the need for government to understand those who don’t make decisions for themselves” (Dumbrell 1993: 1). Later, the application of compassion and morality to his decision-making would result in national impatience and dissatisfaction. It is, however, important to note that during the campaign, Jimmy Carter “had neither hidden his deep religious faith nor harped on it” (Kaufman 1993: 16).

    Once in office, Carter was seen to dismiss the foreign policy of Republican Henry Kissinger, claiming it lacked moral feeling and ignored the human consequences involved in policymaking. This view clashed, however, with the new president’s own serious shortcomings in foreign policy: Carter held no previous experience in international relations and lacked a detailed understanding of the priorities and sensitivities of other societies (ABC 2003; Bell 1980: 13), with the exception perhaps of Israel and Palestine, about which he had learned so much growing up. It was, after all, this area that would be the focus of the ‘Carter Doctrine’. Outlining this important policy, Carter asserted that “any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America” (Bourne 1997: 457-8). This was, essentially, a policy formed in the light of the Soviet Union’s surprise invasion of Afghanistan (Bourne 1997: 457). Politically, though, it was not this policy with which the Carter years would be primarily associated.

    President Carter’s term is strongly linked with two important events: the Camp David Accords and the Iran Hostage Crisis (with the latter being the most memorable). The Camp David Accords, beginning fairly early in the Carter term, led to an historic peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1978 (Mangle & Langone 2004). Israel’s Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, and the Egyptian Prime Minister, Anwar Sadat, took part in lengthy discussions with President Carter at the presidential retreat in Maryland (Mangle & Langone 2004). Carter’s trait of understanding was demonstrated in the relaxed atmosphere he created, the empathetic qualities he showed, and his ability to listen carefully to both parties (Mangle & Langone 2004). A significant portion of Keeping Faith is dedicated to the accords and the forming of the treaty. Reflecting on it, Carter observes how he “spent more of [his] time working for possible solutions to… the Middle East than on any other international problem” (Carter 1982: 429). The Iranian Hostage Crisis began on November 4, 1979, when a gang of students in Iran stormed the United States embassy. In protest against American involvement with Iran, they held ninety people hostage inside the embassy, and the ordeal would last 444 days (Mangle & Langone 2004). The first chapter of Keeping Faith focuses on Carter’s final hours as president. It was during these last hours that the negotiation process reached its conclusion, and Carter was able to secure the release of the hostages. He writes:

    “It is impossible for me to put into words how much the hostages had come to mean to me, or how moved I was that morning to know they were coming home… I was overwhelmed with happiness – but because of the hostages’ freedom, not mine.” (Carter 1982: 14)


    Jimmy Carter came under heavy criticism during the Iranian affair, both from the media and the people of America, and yet it was this long event that revealed the true extent of his genuine compassion and morality. Throughout the crisis, Carter pursued negotiation as a means to securing the hostages’ safety. The public responded angrily to this chosen approach, evident in the nature of letters to America’s newspapers. One such member of the public described Carter’s policy as “wishy-washy language of diplomatic compromise” (Darlington [1979] cited in Mangle & Langone). The nation turned on Carter and the very type of compassion he had promoted through his life. Mangle and Langone (2004) observe that during the crisis, some personality traits in the president displayed am image of leadership incompetence, and that the asset of self-confidence which had worked so well at Camp David failed him in his final hour. Carter would attempt a military rescue operation, but due to a sandstorm and technical problems, the operation failed, worsening the situation and his own image even further (Mangle & Langone 2004).

    Once news broke of the hostages’ freedom on January 20, 1981, the nation had a new president. As a result, the credit and praise that Jimmy Carter deserved for the effort to secure the release was never really granted to him (ABC 2003). Richard E. Neustadt’s (1960) theory – “we do not wait until a man is dead; we rate him from the moment he takes office” (Neustadt 1960: 1) – can be applied to Carter’s situation if we add that our judgment of a leader ends the moment he leaves office. On entering politics for the first time, Carter had wanted to know what was right and what was wrong, and not what would be politically beneficial (ABC 2003). I would propose, ironically, that this mentality was what led to his eventual unpopularity as president, and his subsequent loss in the 1980 election. In choosing peaceful negotiation over a military intervention (which the public was calling out for), Carter chose the morally right over the politically beneficial. Not only was this a choice of the more difficult path over the easier, possibly quicker path, but displayed a deep-seated sense of morality, but also an exceptional degree of strength and self-confidence. Nonetheless, Jimmy Carter left the White House a damaged, forlorn character (ABC 2003; American Experience 2001). His highly admirable post-presidential work around the world has only recently been broadly recognised (due in part to winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002).

    As president, when asked what he might consider doing on regaining private citizenship, Carter had hinted to his desire to become a global missionary and tackling the problems of world hunger (Bourne 1997: 490). Peter Bourne is sure to include a large amount of information on Carter’s post-presidential work. It is clear that Bourne wants his readers to take from the book a positive image of the former president, and highlighting Carter’s proactive dedication to charity is the best way to achieve this. Since leaving office, Carter has been highly active in charitable causes throughout the planet, particularly in Africa. As well, the Carter Centre has monitored government elections in places such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Surinam, Guyana, Zambia, Paraguay, Mexico and Palestine (Bourne 1997: 494). If Jimmy Carter’s legacy is based on his post-presidential charity, it will be one of a truly compassionate statesman. His presidential legacy, for which he will most likely be remembered, may not carry such a description (though it probably deserves to). The ‘compassion’ component of his theme as presidential candidate remained with him as president, even if the ‘competence’ element did not.










    Words: 2, 535
    LIST OF REFERENCES
    Bell, Coral. 1980. President Carter and Foreign Policy: The Costs of Virtue? Canberra: Australian National University.

    Bourne, Peter G. 1997. Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Plains to Post-Presidency. New York: A Lisa Drew Book/Scribner

    Carter, Jimmy. 1982. Keeping Faith. London: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.

    Clendinen, Dudley. 1997. ‘Man from Plains’. New York Times: Books [online]. Accessed 29 August 2005. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/16/reviews/970316.16

    Dumbrell, John. 1993. The Carter Presidency: A Re-Evaluation. New York: Manchester University Press.

    Kaufman, Burton I. 1993. The Presidency of James Earl Carter, JR. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

    Mangle, Amber & Langone, Christine. 2004. ‘Jimmy Carter: Discovering the soul of a leader through an investigation of personality traits’. Leadership Educators [online]. Accessed 23 August 2005. Available at: http://www.leadershipeducators.org/2004/manglelangone.pdf

    Neustadt, Richard E. 1960. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    ______________________________

    Jimmy Carter Library. 2001. ‘Inaugural Address of President Jimmy Carter: 1977’. Accessed 23 August 2005. Available at: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/inaugadd.phtml

    Jimmy Carter. 2003. Video recording. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Sydney, NSW.

    Nobel Prize Organisation. 2002. ‘Jimmy Carter – Nobel Lecture’. Accessed 29 August 2005. Available at: http://www.nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2002/carter-lecture.html

    PBS: American Experience. 2001. ‘People and Events: Jimmy Carter’s Post-Presidency’. Accessed 8 September 2005. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_post.html

     

Post a Comment

<< Home