Seven years to get it right
Coral Bell
When Barack Obama was talking to about 200,000 Berliners during the United States presidential campaign in 2008, he said “that the problems of the world were too great to be solved by one nation alone”. Well, most of us always knew that. But Obama was recognising more than the United States’ need for the European alliance. He was acknowledging the profound, irreversible redistribution of power in the world that actually has far more to do with China and India than with the Europeans. History suggests a precedent for adapting diplomatic practice to such changes—a precedent to which Obama appears intuitively oriented.
The increased status of the G20 is a logical consequence of the interaction of those forces of change. It used to be just a talk-fest for the treasurers of the top 20 economies, but it now requires heads of government. The six great powers (the United States, China, India, Russia, the European Union and Japan), the eight major emerging powers (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and South Africa) and six long-established and usually prosperous Western powers (Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Spain) plus Australia make up a forum which will have an impact on future decisions about how to managethe crises of our multipolar and rapidly changing world. No other grouping takes most of the policy-makers concerned into so influential a company.
George Bush did not invite all the “possibles” to the November 2008 meeting. Later three or more other powers ought to qualify for the group (Iran, Pakistan and Vietnam), and it might in time become the G25. So, to define the overall power-distribution that appears to be emerging this century, it is a central group of the six great powers, a larger circle of at least 18 or so majorpowers, and an outer contingent of the remaining 175 or so other governments of the society of states. But even minor and middle powers in that third group have much more capacity than they have had in earlier centuries to upset the global apple-cart. The world saw that in the economic crisis of late 2008. Though Iceland has a smaller population than Canberra, and no armed forces,its bankers nevertheless seem to have managed (inadvertently) not only to have destroyed their own government but also to have damaged the finances of Britain. That made them, to my mind, surprisingly powerful non-state actors, along with their confrères on Wall Street.
During the second half of the 20th century, the international distribution of power, in contrast to the fast-changing present, was rather stable. Washington and Moscow, for the 43 years of the Cold War (1946–89) glowered at each other, across what often seemed an unbridgeable chasm. Then the Soviet Union fell apart, and we had the 10 years of the “unipolar moment”, of unchallenged US paramountcy. Now that moment has also passed into history. So it has become possible to ask ourselves what this new distribution of power (the context Obama must act in) means for the prospect of maintaining a reasonable degree of order, prosperity and democracy in the world—a very dangerous and crisis-ridden multipolar world, a world of a great many “unknown unknowns”.
To read the full article please subscribe »
Next: America as an idea
Previous: Asia, America and Australia
Subscribe!
In the news
US housing expert has some home truths
16 Mar 2010
Sydney Morning Herald
In this article by Andrew West, current guest of the US studies Centre Henry Cicneros, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Clinton Administration gives his opinion on the NSW Government’s potential use of powers to acquire private land and turn it over to property developers.
A TOP adviser to the Obama administration has warned the Keneally government to exercise extreme caution before using proposed powers that would allow it to acquire private land and turn it over to property developers.
Henry Cisneros, who was secretary of housing and urban development under the former US president Bill Clinton and now advises the White House Office of Urban Affairs, said the government would have to demonstrate that seizing private land was for "a larger public good".
Dr Cisneros, who is in Australia as a guest of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney for a series of lectures and meetings, told the Herald such powers were controversial in the US.
"It's been a raging controversy that's gone all the way up to the Supreme Court," he said.
"It is a problem and, in the US, private property is treated so sacredly there would be inhibitions against it. On the other hand, there have been court rulings saying that, for a defined public good, it is allowable."
Dr Cisneros served four terms as the mayor of San Antonio, Texas, before being appointed to the Clinton cabinet in 1993. He is now a developer of low-income housing and an occasional White House counsellor.
As mayor, he said, he never forced a private owner to sell to the city. "I did not do it to someone who did not want to sell," he said. "We frequently approached people about selling in order to build a 137-store mall downtown, but it was for business use."
But if governments can prove that buying private land occupied by a single home or business was to sell it to a developer for medium and high density dwellings to ease a housing crisis, such powers are justified, he said.
"You could compensate people appropriately, even into the future for the enhanced value," he said. "If fairness can be achieved, if there is a larger public good in creating greater density of housing, then any city that can do it should work at it."
Dr Cisneros also warned that as Australian cities become more crowded and expensive, governments may have to build "workforce housing" for essential staff, such as police, teachers, nurses, and firefighters.
Several years ago, after a fierce storm lashed Seattle, there was no power for several days because repair crews, who could not afford to live in the city, could not return to work from their distant homes. King County in Seattle now has an ordinance that gives workforce housing priority on plots of unused or abandoned land.
In San Jose, California, the city had to offer housing aid to teachers who were resigning after just two years because they could not bear the long commute to school. "The city was losing all that investment in teacher training," Dr Cisneros said.
In nearby San Ramon, police who are forced to live 120 kilometres away now work three 12-hour shifts a week, and stay in dormitories. "They can't make the commute," he said. "So you're getting dysfunctional policing."
In the news
Smith steps up condemnation of Israel over 1600 new settler homes
12 Mar 2010
Sydney Morning Herald
In this report by Kirsty Needham the US Studies Centres' Associate Professor Brendon O'Connor and Postdoctoral Fellow Jeremy Pressman are interviewed about the significance of the latest controversy involving Israeli settlements on disputed land.
STEPHEN SMITH has joined a chorus of international criticism of Israel over its controversial approval of thousands of new settler homes, which threatens to scupper US-brokered Middle East peace talks.
Analysts said the strong language of the Minister for Foreign Affairs was a departure from Australia's record of ''playing it safe'' on Israeli politics. It follows the straining of Australia-Israel relations after the forgery of four Australian passports used in the assassination of a Hamas figure in Dubai, allegedly by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.
Federal police investigating the passport incident are believed to have returned to Australia, but yesterday Mr Smith's office said he had not yet seen their report.
The Israeli government has blamed the announcement of 1600 new homes by its interior minister - just as the US Vice-President, Joe Biden, arrived in Jerusalem and days after the Palestinian Authority had agreed to indirect talks - on a bureaucratic mishap.
The White House has condemned the announcement as undermining the peace process. Mr Smith told Sky News yesterday: ''This is a bad decision at the wrong time, and it's not a helpful contribution to the peace process.''
Britain, the European Union, France and Egypt also condemned Israel's move. But Brendon O'Connor, associate professor in American politics at the University of Sydney's US Studies Centre, said it was a departure for Australia to criticise Israel.
''Australia has previously played this issue very safe compared to a lot of European countries,'' he said. Jeremy Pressman, an American post-doctoral fellow at the centre who specialises in the Arab-Israeli conflict, said the passport tension was likely to be a factor in Mr Smith's rebuke but the broader international community had been angered by the timing of the announcement.
''It is traditional Israeli coalition politics and a long-running way to poke the US in the eye,'' Dr Pressman said.
Mr Smith has told the Israeli ambassador that lack of co-operation with the federal police investigation could bring adverse consequences but has said he will read the report before drawing conclusions.
© 2009 The United States Studies Centre | Privacy Statement
University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
Phone: +61 2 9351 7249 | Fax: +61 2 9351 6877
Email: us-studies@sydney.edu.au | Web: ussc.edu.au
ABN: 85 122 586 341 | CRICOS Number: 00026A
Site by CDW
