SBS recently showed another interesting documentary on US intelligence failures before September 11, 2001. I know they have their problems at the moment, but SBS continues to make the ABC look staid and timid, especially because they regularly air docos not sourced in either the US or Britain.
But back to September 11. One of the lessons from the gross intelligence failure seems to be that not only did the various agencies not talk to each other, they are are just too big to act with any alacrity. In this sense they are experiencing the same organisational problem that business corporations did in the 1980s and 90s. The corporate response was more information technology and radical restructuring, streamlining decision making. But given the legal, international relations and other implications, can intelligence agencies do this?
It is quite amazing how little President Bush has been called to account for September 11. In an International Politics tutorial held a few days afterwards, one of my American exchange students said, “It happenned on his watch, and he’ll pay for that”. As Truman used to say, the buck supposedly stops with the President.
But this does not appear to have taken place. The Whitehouse has clearly lined up CIA boss Tenet to take the fall and pointed the finger at just about everyone but themselves.
Apparently the out-going Clinton officials told the new guys that terrorism and specifically Bin Laden were their biggest headaches, but the Bush team wanted to concentrate on China, missile defence and Iraq. Then Tenet made some noise about terrorism as number one threat but failed to back it up with more resources or action.
This makes Bush and his team clearly culpable to me. If they had really been on the ball, as opposed to dreaming about rearranging world power relations, it is hard to see how something as terrible and dramatic as the airplane attacks could have occurred.
El Quaida is relatively small, dispersed and decentralised (indeed, some people think it is so nebulous as an organisation that they question whether it exists as anything but a Western idea). This was a strength when taking on the monolithic structure of US intelligence, which was built to face off with the even more monolithic Soviet apparatus. The US may or may not be able to reconfigure its own agencies to think and act small and fast. The good news is that smaller states, like Australia, should be more flexible and thus effective. Against terrrorism, smallness and agility are important. So maybe in this case we are better off than the huge, spawling US, as long as we don’t become too locked into US or other agendas.

National Party leader Lawrence Springborg has taken an early lead in the Queensland election cyber race with a “dobber” site. While the major parties have their own slick campaigning sites, Springborg’s is the first, to my knowledge, to venture where the ’net demands you go: the frightening (to political minders especially) world of interactivity.
Springborg’s www.GovernmentWaste.com.au site invites residents to send him tip-offs about government waste. As it stands it is little more than the front-end to a postbox. You can log on and fill in a form which generates a report to the webmaster so that it can be dealt with.
Why would you use this site? I’m not sure. It does make submission of ideas easier, particularly if you are sitting in front of a computer most of the day, but this could in fact be a negative. If there is serious abuse or misuse of government money, then surely someone who wanted to report it would be motivated enough to use the traditional means of letter, phone or face to face. A system which is too easy to use, and which facilitates anonymity, is likely to generate its own waste by producing too many unsubstantiated, trivial and potentially mischievous claims.
In fact, allowing anonymity almost guarantees a good feed of the trivial, because it suggests you are not putting a really high value on the information that you are receiving.
Perhaps the site will develop over time. The Internet is great for fishing expeditions, but you need to put the cyber equivalent of burley into the water to get the fish really excited. While some of the informants will want to be anonymous, others will want full recognition of their contributions. That means, if they post to the site, they should be able to see their contributions up on the site as well as the contributions of others. They should also be able to see the results of tip-offs. To encourage certain types of feedback the site should also feature issues that the Opposition is currently pursuing – nothing like priming the pumps.
NotGoodEnough.org a pioneering Australian consumer website does most of these things very well.
Of course campaign managers will be concerned about publishing too much information lest the Government take advantage of it. In some exceptional cases this will be a legitimate concern because the issue will need a high impact media campaign to find the mark. But there should be a lot of more minor issues which will never be significant enough to be upfront in the campaign, but which deserve to be aired. There is undoubtedly an audience for this sort of information for which this site could become an alternative media source.
Once an issue is aired on the site it also gives the Opposition the initiative. If the government fixes any of the problems that appear on the site, no matter how advanced the solution was before it became public, the Opposition can claim the credit. In fact, the government potentially loses the ability to claim any credit for issues that the Opposition and its army of waste vigilantes raises. The site can also operate as a media center for the press, giving them a fund of stories for those slow news days.
To his credit Springborg says that the site “will continue to operate if the National-Liberal Coalition is elected to office”. This is a claim to be cached for later reference, just in case. Peter Beattie should pre-empt the Opposition initiative by launching his own “dobber” site to prove that even though he is in government he is still listening to the electorate.
I’m not sure how serious the Opposition is about the site, so I’ve designed a real world experiment. I dropped them a note using their form, and suggested that someone call me. I’ll let you know the time and date when that happens. That will be a real indicator as to how long Springborg is likely to keep his cyber lead.

The UN and Britain have both come out against the death penalty for Saddam, and so should have Australia. I suspect Saddam’s fate may become one of those defining moments of civilisation, like the Nuhremburg trials after WWII. Terrible things have happened, and there is a chance to reflect and act with a mind to the higher principles that the West likes to claim justify its global pre-eminence. President Bush’s record as Governor of Texas hardly makes him a credible proponent of such values, but if there is real pressure from the rest of the developed world then the West’s claims to civilisational maturity will be strengthened. Exactly because Saddam has come to embody evil for so many, he must be treated scrupuloulsy fairly to show that justice is beyond the individual. Otherwise, it is just about power – a view I think Osama Bin Laden would take.
As for Mark Latham, his punitive mindset is one of the things, like crude language, that he must leave behind as leader. In any case, since Australia does not have the death penalty (after long and painful experience) he simply has to put the national position on this matter. Howard’s failure to do so is just one more nail in his coffin as a genuine Australian leader.
Australia used be seen as perhaps the most fair and reasonable of all the developed nations, a leader in international affairs. Increasingly we are just perceived as subservient US followers. Latham is weak in foreign affairs, so if he wants to establish a profile and at the same time reassert national independence, taking a positive, independent line in the wash-up of the war in Iraq is one way to do it.

John Howard has copped some flack over his hardline stand over Zimbabwe and the Commonwealth, including claims emanating from parts African of racism. Considering that two of Howard’s most controversial stances involve race (Aboriginals and refugees), is he open to such accusations?
Racism is an easy thing to assert, and we see it being used to quash criticism a fair bit. In fact, it is hard to even figure out what racism is, given that technically we don’t know what ‘race’ is. Most people would assume it has something to do with skin colour, but beyond this it is a very nebulous concept. Often what people think is about race is actually about culture. While racism seems intrinsically unfair – because a person can hardly change their colour (except for Michael Jackson) – culture is created and can be changed and is thus open to criticism.
I don’t think John Howard is a racist in any meaningful way, but I do think he has a problem valuing non-western cultures. Due to a combination of an almost complete acceptance of conservative, white Australian culture and a certain narrowness of mind, Howard just seems incapable of understanding that some people might reasonably live differently. Due to this narrowness of experience and vision, he just doesn’t get why indigenous people are so unhappy about being dispossessed of their land or taken from their relatives. Or that Afghani refugees might really love their children. Or that land reform in Zimbabwe is seen by many blacks as central to its future.
Up till now Howard has got away with this xenophobia because it resonates with the old demon of Australian history, racism, defined simply in colour terms. Many white Australians came to fear and then feel guilty about their abuse of Aboriginals, and racism as a defence against black and yellow labour was built into the new national industrial fabric. So the ongoing ignorance of the plight of Aboriginal Australians and the hostility to (often brown skinned) refugees has a strong historical basis.
But such attitudes do not seem as strong in younger generations, and I don’t see that any of the new crop of political leaders on either side have this reflexive attitude. As with the monarchy issue, sometimes John Howard just seems very old.

Interesting that Online Opinion’s own research backs up the current idea that Mark Latham needs to differentiate himself from Howard (and Crean and Beazley, for that matter) by taking a strong position and sticking to it.
So, too bad he echoed Howard in saying he would not object if an ‘Iraqi’ court executed Saddam.
No doubt some people in high places wish Saddam had just got shot, like his two sons, but he didn’t and now his treatment will be a test case for the new world order being generated by the global war on terrorism. One way the West can show that it is not morally bankrupt (as Islamic fundamentalists claim) is to show how the rule of law actually works. Saddam has been made a symbol of evil by the Allies, and so if he is treated fairly and by due process it will send a powerful message. Especially to those in the Middle East wondering which way to jump.
Australia, for its part, thinks the death penalty is no longer acceptable punishment, and so our leaders should say this. This is especially relevant as our military forces helped depose Saddam.

A pathetic, scruffy old man is dug out of hole, and one of the more nasty dictatorships of the last century comes to an end. President Bush will be relieved that he won’t have to go to the next election with both his mortal enemies unaccounted for, but Saddam’s capture presents as many problelms as it solves.
First, how to try him. Not only must some reference to international law be made, it must be done in such a way that looks reasonable but does not lay the US and Britain (not to mention Germany and a few other nations) open to Saddam’s comments. There is a murky past to Iraq that many current powerful people will want to keep unexposed. No one will want Saddam on a soap box reminiscing about the good old days when the rich countries fell over themselves to help him out.
Second, if he maintains his position that Iraq did not have WMD, then this is a real challenge to Bush, Blair and our own boy. The problem is that if he rolls over and says he did have them, people will expect to see the evidence. So he either denies their existence, or some evidence will have to come forward. Either way, the Allies have got a problem.
Third, how to sentence Saddam. Given the demonising of him, the US will find it hard not to kill him. But leaving the objections from other nations aside, no such leader has been publically executed in modern times. It would be an extraordinary event. And if they do kill him, it would create perhaps the greatest Islamic martyr in history.
Furthermore, it may well evoke comparisons with Nuhremburg, which could be embarrassing for the Allies who some international lawyers accuse of launching an illegal war of aggression on Iraq (and Afghanistan?).
Speaking of this question of capital punishment, I do wish our PM would remember that here in OZ we do not believe in the death penalty. Howard should either support this principle, no matter what, or if he actually favours the death penalty, come out and say it.
Interesting times ahead, and any of a number of things could come unstuck for Bush in his shot at a second presidential term. A bit of mud might splatter on Blair and Howard as well.
And while on the subject of dictators, the Russian Communist Party got clobbered in the Russian elections and now constitute a lowly 12% of the parliament. Overseas observers criticised the election as being anything but honest. Putin is destroying all serious opposition in parliament (and thus, arguably, undermining the role of parliament) to make his own administration the sole political force in Russia. His next step is to get the constitution amended to allow him more than two terms of office as President.
Seems to me something like this happened once before to the Russian CP when an ambitious strongman sidelined it, so let’s hope it all works out better this time, for everyone’s sake.

According to Wired News the US State of Virginia has indicted two spammers for breaking its newly proclaimed anti-spam legislation. One of the two, Jeremy Jaynes, “is number 8 on the top 10 worldwide spammer list”.
Virginia is a particularly significant state as more than 50% of all Internet traffic in the world passes through it because that is where AOL and 1,300 other ISPs or technology companies live. Anti-spam legislation in the Virginia jurisdiction is probably more influential on the spam that arrives in Australian email intrays than the legislation that will come into effect here next year.
The offence carries a potential 5 year jail term, and up to $2,500 USD in fines. Presumably the jail terms are a more significant deterrent than the fines. Wired reports that both the men “were supporting affluent lifestyles”, so yes, spam does work and it does pay.
While these convictions are superficially heartening, I can’t help but think that the net result won’t be significant. Not only do I continue to get record amounts of spam, despite these guys being off the market, but this looks like an export opportunity for somewhere like Nigeria. The USA takes a very generous view of its ability to pass laws with extraterritorial effect. Still, I’d like to see it try to enforce this one beyond its own bounds. Switzerland, Lichtenstein, the Jersey Islands, Monaco, the Caymans, the Bahamas, and the Cook Islands all demonstrate that there is a nice living to be made dodging financial imposts in First World countries. Nigeria already produces a lot of the spam courtesy of its infamous email scam, so it is in an advanced position to become a spam haven. Something else to do if the oil ever runs out.

In yesterday’s Australian Mark Latham is quoted as pointing to “John Curtin and Bob Hawke as examples he wanted to follow.”
He is promising to reform. Hawke and Curtin both apparently had drinking problems, however that exactly is defined. Latham says he doesn’t have an alcohol problem. He appears to be referring to his use of language. In that case I’m not exactly sure what he is saying, because being a bit verbally aggressive doesn’t really rank with alcoholism. Alcoholism can only properly be understood as an illness – something to a large extent involuntary – and is never really a good. Verbal aggression is much more of a personal choice, and is frequently a prized characteristic.
I can’t but help thinking that Latham is actually reaching out to these two iconic Labor leaders in a much deeper way than as role models for changing habits in his life. In our research into the last federal election we found a yearning for a different style of politics. Voters wanted inclusive leadership that could bring the nation together. 9/11 had given us a collective feeling of insecurity and voters thought it called for a different style of politics other than the confrontational. As “Gail2” said in our group of the 18th October, 2001 – “It ties in with the events of Sep 11. When the world experienced the emotion and the fear and the terror and the reality struck, I saw it as an opportunity to break through the usual political rhetoric.”
When pressed for an appropriate historical model PM participants nominated first Curtin, then Menzies, and when pressed, Bob Hawke. I think that it is this perception and need that Latham is actually subconsciously articulating.
I don’t think the role of conciliator and peacemaker is one for him. The thing that Latham has going for him at the moment is authenticity. It is a characteristic that voters don’t associate with Crean or Beazley, although they recognize elements of it in Howard. When asked to nominate authentic politicians in our research in the past they would nominate leaders like Bob Brown or Natasha Stott Depoja. It’s also a quality that Pauline Hanson had. Latham is not authentically a peacemaker in the public mind, and I don’t think that is his nature. To portray himself as one will cost him his authenticity.
The public has a Pygmalion impulse to try to mould public leaders in their own desired image and when they succeed they loathe and then despise them, muttering about “poll-driven politics”. No doubt Latham has been urged to be like Curtin and Hawke. It is an embrace that is to be resisted. Latham has got where he is by being himself, that’s his advantage. The Labor Party has lost three elections now because it has been seen to be untrustworthy, that’s his disadvantage. A Latham who changed character at this stage would lose the first and reinforce the second. He has enough difficulties in front of him without needlessly exaggerating them. Besides, it’s always easier to play yourself rather than someone else.

About once a month I form part of a panel on Kirsten MacGregor’s show on local ABC radio called “Week in Review”. This morning the other members were Adrian McGregor from The Australian and Cathy Border, Political Editor of Channel Ten. Mark Latham was in town and Kirsten was interviewing him, so we had the pleasure of listening to her gentle and keen interviewing style through the studio window. Unfortunately they don’t archive real audio excerpts on the local ABC site. I thought her best question was the one where she asked Latham about his promise to reform – “Is this going to cramp your style and stop you from saying things that need to be said?” (or words to that effect).
It’s a good question. Can Latham change his rhythm, and if he does will it rob him of the one thing that people are most excited about in him – his energy? And if he can change that rhythm, was the earlier Latham only an act? On Line Opinion has done some polling on the issues, and one focus group. We haven’t done the full analysis yet, but I have done a “quick and dirty” one which I sent in to Kirsten’s producer Lesley Major earlier this morning. If you want the same peek I gave Kirsten and Lesley, click here. (If it asks for your “user name” and “password” just click cancel).
My take is that his support is very brittle. Latham has energized and changed the political landscape. Support on the left is strong for him and some Australians who currently support the government are thinking of moving across. However, it will all come undone if Latham adopts policies that are seen as being too similar to the government on the economy, foreign affairs and refugees. His biggest stumble to date appears to be the photograph in front of the US flag. While voters largely like what he is saying, and he is concentrating on the right issues, he is widely regarded as an unknown quantity. He needs to establish what he stands for very clearly and runs a risk that if he can’t then the government will do it for him.

They say that they don’t ring a bell at the top of a boom, but if a bellhop starts offering you share tips it is time to sell. I’ve always subscribed to the “straw hats in winter” theory of investing and feel very uncomfortable if everyone has the same idea at the same time as me. This makes me not a lot of fun in a disco which is the sort of place where everyone is expected to have the same non-idea at the same time.
This morning I got a bellhop tip about the internet boom. I’m used to receiving emails from slightly louche soon to be ex-dignitaries in places like Nigeria offering to share some of their ill-gotten loot with me if only I will give them my bank account details. I treat these emails with the contempt they deserve and delete them, never getting to the second or subsequent email where not only do I give them my account details but also share my password with them. Over the years I have received a large number of these. They are generally distinguished by promiscuous use of capital letters and opening sentences that tell me that I must be surprised to hear from them. Damn right I am.
Surprisingly there is not a lot of variation between them. For a while the geographical focus shifted from Nigeria to Liberia when lots of aides of the recently deposed President of that country, Charles Taylor, tried to contact me. There was also a religious theme for a while with born again Christians wanting me to help them by taking their burden of sin and filthy lucre off their shoulders.
The latest trend is the use of “old” technologies. Twice in the last week I have been rung by people from Ghana who want to do business in Australia, and have picked me as their chosen vehicle. Deeply flattered I have muttered something into the phone about a scam and hung up. Surely this is the end of the Internet as we thought we had come to know it when an Internet scam migrates to more primitive technology.
Research by the Pew centre in the US tends to confirm this. Internet penetration has stalled at around 60% of the population since 2001. Of the remaining 40% half will go back on line at some time, while half have no interest at all. So, if 20% are offline but will be online again at this moment, that suggests that there is an equal number who are online who will go offline at some stage. Leading to the conclusion that only around 40% of the population is dedicated, always wired citizens. My hunch is that the boom has topped and nothing much will change until someone seamlessly marries the Internet to the television set. When we start thinking of it as more of a communications pipeline than a new form of media, it will be ready for some more take-up.