The Abbott government cares little for our sovereignty

Image source: www.dfat.gov.au

Sovereignty is the quality of having power over a geographical area. Traditionally, this has referred to governments being able to exercise political power and control over their jurisdictions.

In the recent election campaign, Tony Abbott made much of the supposed threat to our sovereignty from people seeking asylum in Australia. The Abbott government even went as far as to name its refugee policy "operation sovereign borders" and militarise the operation by appointing a 3-star general to oversee it.

However, while desperate people seeking asylum on leaky fishing boats are characterised as a threat to our sovereignty worthy of a military response, a true threat to Australia's sovereignty has quietly become government policy.

On the eve of the last election the Coalition quietly released its trade policy [PDF] which significantly changed the previous government's approach to investor state dispute settlements (ISDS) in trade treaties. ISDS' are clauses which allow multinational corporations to sue national governments that are signatories to a treaty for passing laws that are harmful to the interests of these corporations. These cases are not heard in national courts but in tribunals that are often presided over by representatives of multinational corporations - hardly independent arbiters.

This effectively allows multinational corporations to over-ride government's powers effect legislation without the threat of significant legal action. Already, Australia is being sued in Hong Kong by tobacco companies for passing a law to enforce  plain packaging of cigarettes. This law was passed by both houses of the Australian parliament and confirmed by the High Court, however, the ISDS in a bilateral treaty now has the potential to penalise the Australian Government for performing its democratic function.

The previous government rejected the use of ISDS' as not being in the national interest, however, the Abbott Government's trade policy remains open to the use of ISDS'. The Abbott Government has stated that it is keen to conclude free-trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - a treaty negotiated in secret that contains ISDS'.

Leaked sections of the TPP indicate it will potentially undermine fair access to copyright material and limit environmental protection laws, public health measures and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Governments will be limited to legislate in these areas by the threat of serious financial penalties - even if it is in the national interest to legislate.

At the recent APEC conference Malaysian Prime Minister Razak characterised the TPP as:

"impinge[ing] fundamentally the sovereign right of the country [Malaysia] to make regulation and policy''.

This curtailment of a government's sovereign power represents not only a threat to democracy, but a fundamental shift in political power from the citizenry to multinational organisations.

When the Coalition said that 'Australia was open for business' what they really meant was that 'Australian sovereignty was for sale'.

Observations from the US: The economy and partisan politics

In his recent speech to the American Chamber of Commerce (SA), Reserve Bank of Australia governor Glenn Stevens outlined Australia's exceptional economic performance in the face of global uncertainty. Stevens urged Australians to see the glass as half full even though many Australians have been determined to see that the Australian economy is in crisis - a perception that is helped by the hysterical campaigning of the opposition parroted by a captured Australian media.

According to Stevens:

"[...]the nature of public discussion is unrelentingly gloomy, and this has intensified over the past six months. Even before the recent turn of events in Europe and their effects on global markets, we were grimly determined to see our glass as half empty. Numerous foreign visitors to the Reserve Bank have remarked on the surprising extent of this pessimism. Each time I travel abroad I am struck by the difference between the perceptions held by foreigners about Australia and what I read in the newspapers at home."

I have recently spent six weeks travelling around the United States and this has been my experience as well. I observed a deeply depressed American economy and a highly polarised political climate. There was a general feeling of malaise from locals I spoke to about the current state of the American economy. Many of them knew about Australia's excellent economic performance and were bemused by the pessimism about the Australian economy expressed by Australians.

The middle class in America has been under sustained assault from a succession of policies promulgated from rent-seekers and interest groups through Congress.

According to the Congressional Budget Office:

"[...] over the 1979 to 2007 period, the highest income quintile’s share of market income increased from 50 percent to 60 percent, while the share of market income for every other quintile declined. In fact, the distribution of market income became more unequal almost continuously between 1979 and 2007." 

Any attempt to mitigate the outcomes of these policies has been systematically blocked by the partisanship that has pervaded the American political system.

This, combined with the unemployment rate that has exceeded 8% since February 2009, has gutted the middle classes. This has reduced the spending of the middle-class that is the underpinning of the economy.

One of the locals I spoke to (a small business owner) lamented "there is no middle class in America, just the rich and various classes of poor".

Everyone I spoke to was stunned by Australia's economic figures (particularly the unemployment rate) and even more stunned that Australians were complaining about the economy. However, once I explained the partisanship that had infected our political discourse, many of them recognised the political climate that has led the American economy to its current state.

There is a lesson in this for Australia: the sort of partisanship that is being pursued by the opposition and its pandering to rent-seekers and interest groups has consequences for the wider Australian economy. When even the central bank is warning about its effects on confidence, the opposition should take note and begin to act in the National interest, rather than their own interest in gaining power at any cost.

Australians should see the glass as half full: our economy is doing well, unemployment is very low and inflation and interest rates are also low - if Australians really want a view of how "Hockeynomics" and Abbott-style partisan politics works out: go the the US and observe the future.

Hockeynomics: Cut medicare, subsidise private health, save money

Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, has attacked the "culture of entitlement" that has supposedly stemmed from Australia's welfare state - citing examples of our Asian neighbours as a yardstick by which to judge effective government spending on welfare.

An excellent analysis of Hockey's argument by Matt Cowgill shows that, in fact, Australia's welfare spend on areas other than health and ageing, is comparable to our Asian neighbours. It also compares strongly to other Western countries, including the US.

Cowgill's conclusion is that the only place in which welfare can effectively be cut is in either Health or Ageing:

"To achieve the sort of cuts that Hockey has flagged, to bring our social spending into line with Korea and other countries in our region, would involve huge cuts to health spending, pensions, aged care and help for people with disabilities."

However, there is no need to go into a depth of analysis to see that this is precisely what the coalition intends to do with its cuts to welfare.

In an interview with Lateline, in answer to a question on the Private Health Insurance Rebate, Hockey outlines a move to the US-style system of health care: heavily subsidised private providers providing the bulk of care, with a minor role for a public safety net. Hockey said (emphasis mine):

"If you reduce or remove the Private Health Insurance Rebate, you are simply pushing more people onto the public hospital system, which means they have an entitlement to universal health care, which means that the entitlement system grows."

Hockey is suggesting that an entitlement to universal health care is a bad thing and it is more effective to dismantle the universal system for a system of government subsidy to the private sector.

Hockey goes on further to say: "some entitlements [the Private Health Insurance Rebate] work to reduce other entitlements."

So, according to Hockey, the use of the Private Health Insurance Rebate - a subsidy to the private sector, will reduce the entitlement to universal health care [ie. Medicare].  The shifting of subsidies to the private sector and the dismantling of Medicare's universality smacks heavily of the current US system. In this system the publicly funded system is only available to certain classes of citizen with many falling between the cracks of subsidised private health insurance and the public scheme.

So how does this system compare for cost savings? According to the OECD the US health system costs 7.2% GDP compared to the Australian system which costs 5.7%. In terms of life expectancy, the US ranks 38th in the world, compared to Australia's rank of 6th. There appears to be little gained in the way of cost savings or better health outcomes.

Hockey has given us a glimpse of what a Coalition government would do to fund it's $70 billion in promises - Medicare's universality is to be dismantled, and not for cost but for an ideological antipathy to Medicare that has festered in the Coalition since Malcom Fraser first opposed it.

Billionaires and Battlers

Labor back bencher, Kelvin Thompson, has recently become embroiled in the latest round of Australia's supposed "class war" by daring to suggest that the $50 million taxpayer funding of Australia's F1 Grand Prix might better be better spent on hospitals than funding the lavish lifestyle of Bernie Eccelstone's daughter.

The response from Eccelstone was typical of the recent responses of billionaires to criticism - that democratically elected representatives should resign for daring to criticise those of the moneyed elite. Similar to Clive Palmer's dummy spit to Wayne Swan's article in The Monthly, Ecclestone became indignant and rather than address the criticism, engaged in ad hominem attacks as if somehow the mere fact that he was rich was a shield to any sort of criticism.

Palmer and Eccelstone have attacked their critics variously as "communists" and "destroying the wealth of this country and robbing our children of their opportunities". They have both forgotten that it is the stability of the democratic civil society that has enabled their wealth including, in Palmer's case, the ability to exploit publicly owned assets. Yet the billionaire's view is that they are entitled to their position, and their position is immune to criticism. Those that criticise them, regardless of the fact that they may be democratically elected, "should be fired".

These indignant reactions to criticism are typical of the 1% - they do not see themselves as participants in a society that goes deeper than mere tax-deductable expressions of philanthropy. They see themselves as entitled to a special place in the operation of that society, free from its responsibilities - an unfettered plutocracy, geared to exploit.

We have seen the results of when the 1% are unfettered, first in the 1980's when Reagan removed lending regulations on savings and loans banks that eventually resulted in a financial crisis, and secondly in the 2000's when Bush similarly removed restrictions on banks that resulted once again in financial crisis. In both instances, the 1% were happy to use the removal of regulation to exploit those that were most at risk in society to the detriment of all, particularly the wealth generating middle-class which is now being squeezed out of existence by a rampant 1%.

The disproportionate intrusion of the billionaires to undermine the civil society by the mere size of their wealth is an expression of a sense of arrogant entitlement from those who do not think that a £1 million Mexican crystal bathtub is a vulgar extravagance. A sense of entitlement that was built out of the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980's.

Margaret Thatcher's declaration in the 1980's that "there is no such thing as society" became the rallying cry of neo-conservatives around the world. Neo-conservative governments began to remove the progressive regulation and taxation systems that had limited the excesses of the rich under the theory that the civil society was unnecessary and that the self-interest of individuals would be sufficient.

Ironically, these conservatives decried the entitlement culture and assumed that the emphasis on the individual would necessarily lead to a "trickle down" of wealth to those less fortunate.

Thatcher herself recognised the entitlement culture, stating: "People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

However, both Thatcher and Reagan saw those obligations (including the tax burden) as rightly falling upon the poor and middle classes and not similarly upon the rich. The view was that by the very fact that the rich were wealthy, they had fulfilled any obligation to society. This position unravelled the social contract and led to the excesses that caused the financial crises. Far from these crises causing a re-evaluation of this position, Thatcher, Reagan and later Bush continued with their policies further squeezing the middle classes. This has led to an entitlement culture growing amongst the rich - that regardless of the damage caused by their exploitation, government should be there to pick up the pieces at taxpayers expense.

In the past, this sort of sense of entitlement from the rich was met with derision from both the working and middle classes because it was seen for what it was - a desire to exploit society for reasons of self-interest. The institutions of the civil society placed proportionate obligations on everyone.

However, the structures of the civil society have been eroded by successive neo-conservative governments, which has created a society built on exploitation and an indignant sense of entitlement.

The removal of these institutions by conservative governments has led to  the "trickle down" of the exploitative sense of the entitlement to the middle class such that the billionaire's dilemma can be related to by those who are less well off. Accusations of "class warfare" resonate with the middle class, even though the warfare is actually being perpetuated upon them from above.

In Australia, this sense of entitlement has been generated through the explosion in middle class welfare under the Howard government. Just as the 1% believe that they are entitled to be unfettered by responsibilities to society, the middle class believe they are entitled to subsidy-fueled mortgages, private health rebates, subsidised private schools and the like, regardless of the exploitative effect on civil society. In fact, when governments have tried to make these "entitlements" progressive, it has been met with howls of "class warfare".

We have become too relaxed and comfortable, demanding our share of the trough rather than accepting our responsibility to engage with our obligations to society. We instead have fallen to the cheap popularism of slogan inspired "comfort".

This is why the accusation of class warfare has such resonance. In the same way that the billionaires see criticism of their extravagant unsustainable lifestyles as unfair, the middle classes see criticism of their entitlement to an unsustainable subsidy as equally unfair.

The exploitation of the unravelling of civil society is most pronounced by the 1%, who lobby for more changes that entrench their influence and power, but it can also be seen by the subsidy demanding "Howard battlers" who parrot the demands of the 1% even as their own standards of living are eroded.

This exploitative culture has thoroughly distorted the economy, such that everyone looks to Government to provide the conditions by which they can exploit society - rather than to provide conditions under which society thrives. The rampant individualism set in motion in the Thatcher and Regan eras has engendered the exploitation culture - a culture that led us to the global financial crisis and a culture that has created a crisis for the civil society.

Ignorance powers the climate change debate

The recent furore over Cate Blanchett appearing in an ad [video] supporting climate change has highlighted the strong current of anti-intellectualism that is driving the carbon pricing debate. The opposition has shown itself all too keen to pander to Australia's inherent cultural cringe to brand celebrities, economists, and scientists who support a carbon price as elitist and out of touch. It is interesting to note that it was Blanchett that garnered all of the criticism and not Michael Caton, an actor more associated with "ordinary Australians" through his roles in "The Castle" and "Packed to the Rafters". The reason for this is to play into the narrative that the opposition is trying to build around an "elitism" that is supposedly at the heart of carbon pricing.

This characterisation of the debate as an "us and them" rather than a debate about ideas is a hallmark of the tea-party style politics that have become such a feature of the rhetoric of the right. This dichotomy between "us" the ordinary citizen and "them" the intellectual elitist is the very building block of the astroturfing "movements" that are built up by powerful interests who are happy to stand behind and manipulate these so-called people's movements to further their own corporate interests. The involvement of Koch Industries in undermining climate science and engineering the "debate" both by manipulating the right-wing media and by funding the Tea Party in America is well documented but in Australia we are only just beginning to see the rise of a similar model of politics.

Combined with the new activism of large corporate interests in the mining industry, the rhetoric by the opposition and its News Ltd. cheerleaders is straying dangerously close to that of the Tea Party - building the dynamic of "us and them" that is so characteristic of tea-party politics.

The Government has not helped itself in this regard. Its inability to disassociate itself from the "elitism" narrative, built in some part by the intellectual Kevin Rudd, has fed into the anti-intellectual narrative. This was highlighted almost comically in the debate over the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) on mining. The miners ad depicted an "ordinary" mine-worker talking to "ordinary Australians" about issues to which they could relate. Compare that with the Government's ad set in a lecture theatre, the very epitome of "academic elitism". Feeding this narrative that has carefully been built up by the opposition and its powerful allies effectively devastated the government's reforms.

The opposition effectively builds this anti-intellectual narrative with its simplistic sloganeering and cheap politics. Distilling every argument down to its simplistic "us and them" dichotomy, eschewing debate. It is combined with careful dog-whistling to the extreme right to assure them that whatever policies they do actually put forward are always done with a wink and a nod to the extremes.

This unhelpful narrative undermines the whole public policy process, but then it is the opposition's goal to reduce every debate to sloganeering. The opposition doesn't even try to engage in the policy debate, barely selling their own alternative "direct action" plan as it is their intention to merely frame any debate regardless of its content into an "us vs. them" slanging match. This charactisation of the debate away from actual policy to the "us and them" rhetoric enables the seemingly hypocritical attack on Blanchett for her wealth and elite status while praising the even more wealthy Gina Rinehart. The narrative paints Rinehart as the "down to earth mine worker" and Blanchett as the "elitist intellectual".

The building of the anti-intellectual narrative is what has leads to the more unhinged types resorting to making death threats and engaging in campaigns of bullying against scientists doing their research. Even though those that build the narrative would seek to deny the connection.

The dangerous narrative is of little concern to the activist corporate interests. It is important to them that debates are reduced to dichotomies of "us and them" as it makes it easier for them to mobilise astroturf anti-intellectual movements against those which would seek to limit their power. It enables them to excuse their own hypocrisy, shut down debate and mobilise their astroturf campaigns with their cries of "out of touch elite". Anti-intellectualism is a powerful force which tea party politics has harnessed both here and in the US and it has been ruthlessly exploited by the new right.

"Ignorance is Strength"

The rule of force undermines justice

The mythologising of the recent killing of Osama bin Laden has already begun with the Right (particularly in America) already claiming that the Bush-era policies (unfortunately carried over into the Obama administration) of torture, extra-judicial killings and using the rule of force over that of law have been vindicated. However, the actions by the US to assassinate bin Laden are likely to be more counterproductive to the War on Terror as they undermine the rule of law and give succor to those who would prefer an anarchic international system ruled by force and supported by perpetual conflict. This is precisely the sort of world in which the poisonous ideas of Osama bin Laden and his ilk gain credence and following.

Although there are many valid criticisms that can be leveled at the United Nations (and in particular the archaic United Nations Security Council system), it at least provides the legal framework for the operation of international security. Unfortunately the US-led war on terror has done much to undermine this system - particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has been argued by critics of the invasion of Afghanistan, that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) never authorised the use of force in Afghanistan. The two instruments that are widely thought to have authorised the use of force are:

1. UNSC Resolution 1368 which firstly re-affirms the right to self-defence in Article 51 of the UN charter and states in clause 3:

"[The UNSC] Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;"

2. UNSC Resolution 1373 imposed a duty of Member States to:

"Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;"

Proponents of the invasion argue that, although the resolutions do not specifically authorise the use of military force, the harbouring of Osama bin Laden by the Taliban constituted an illegal act for which they should be held accountable. Furthermore, the right to self-defence from terrorist act would include bringing to justice the perpetrators of terrorist acts and those who provide material support to those perpetrators. However, while proponents of this argument are happy to apply it to the situation in Afghanistan, they are loathe to apply it universally.

The view that sovereign nations habouring terrorists provides a blank cheque to use military force is also held out as the reason for the ability of US forces to raid the compound in which Osama bin Laden was hiding. This action has even further damaged strained relations between Pakistan and the US which ultimately undermines the ostensible aims of the War on Terror to make the world safer. An unstable Pakistan would be disastrous, which is probably why the US has made little noise about the fact that bin Laden had been hiding in relative plain sight in Pakistan for anything up to ten years.

The problem of the raid is that its aim was not to arrest bin Laden, but to assassinate him. An arrest operation would likely have garnered less criticism - particularly if that arrest had led to a trial, either in the US or preferably before the International Criminal Court (although the US is not a signatory to the ICC). This would have sent the message that there are international crimes for which a person may be arrested and tried, rather than the message that the US can go into any country and assassinate whomsoever it pleases. One could imagine that if other countries pursued the same policies there would be uproar - and an ultimately unworkable and unstable international system.

This is why the rule of law must be applied universally. The trial before a competent court with access to a defense counsel gives authority to the decision to arrest and supports a workable international framework for dealing with international criminals. Although the ICC would be preferable, an American court would have sufficed in this instance and the potential breach of international law (although it could be argued that UNSC Resolution 1368 authorised the action) could be remedied. There has been precedent for this in the past.

The bringing to trial of international war criminals sends a message to people who would commit these types of crimes that they will be arrested and bought before the court as a common criminal, and not assassinated and martyred by a State which holds as little regard for the law as they do.

TPP turning ISPs into copyright police

The 6th round of negotiations for the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are set to occur from 28th March 2011 - and if we were to rely on DFAT's website the TPP treaty is merely to:

"develop a high-quality, comprehensive 21st century Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that increases economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly as membership expands over time."

This all sounds very reasonable but what it doesn't mention is that, amongst other things, the TPP has a significant section devoted to copyright.

The US Trade Representative to the treaty negotiations has put forward a number of proposals which would "harmonise IPR provisions strictly upwards", these include:

• Banning parallel imports
• Increasing the term of copyright
• Criminalising Digital Rights Managment (DRM) circumvention - even when there is no copyright infringement
• Imposing ISP liability for the infringement of their users, including providing incentives for ISPs to become copyright cops for the content industry
• Requiring ISPs to identify users at the behest of the content industry
• Expanding the scope of what is patentable and limit objections to patents

This, of course, reads like a wish-list of the content industry and it would probably not surprise anyone to know that there is an extremely close relationship between the content industry and the US government.

Furthermore, the TPP contains provisions for "dispute resolutions" which means that countries that are not compliant with the increased scope of the IP provisions can be fined.

So what does this mean for Australia?

Firstly, the TPP IP provisions exceed those in the AUSFTA and even further than the completed-but-not-in-force ACTA treaty, especially the "exceptions" provisions for DRM and the expanded scope for patentable material.

Secondly, it will impose a regime of ISP copyright enforcement that goes much further than the suggested model put forward by Emmet, J in the AFACT v iiNet case. The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has already stated that it is prepared to draft a code to address the uncertainty regarding the steps that ISPs should take in responding to allegations of copyright infringement by their users. However, the imposition of the TPP will make this attempt at industry self-regulation redundant by substituting an industry negotiated code, which will likely contain at least some consumer protections, to a legislative regime which does not. Furthermore, a country is prevented from implementing more consumer friendly provisions by the "dispute resolution" clauses that may result in the country being fined.

So there is a real danger that the TPP will further tip the balance in favour of big content and away from consumers, but then this seems to be the modus operandi  of these FTAs and is hardly surprising. The irony is that the more big content punishes consumers and refuses to provide content in a way that their customers want, the more their customers will pirate their content using the ever-more sophisticated tools available to find and download content and to hide their tracks while doing so - making a legislative regime ineffective.

As IIA president Peter Coroneous said recently:

"Market failure remains a core contributor to the infringement problem. If users have access to more and better content, when, where and in the form they choose to consume it, and at a realistic price, we're quite confident the motivation for infringement will decline. We certainly don't condone the infringement of copyright - but internet users need attractive, lawful alternatives if we are to see positive behavioural change. There's no reason why Australia shouldn't be leading the way here."

And maybe that is the area in which Australia can lead the way, rather than continuing to implement an ever-more draconian legislative regime under the guise of "free trade".

The new gatekeepers- internet freedom has a price but no way to pay

Much has been made of the internet being the great 'leveler'. Citizen journalists and bloggers have challenged the model of traditional publishing, file-sharing has challenged the business models of the music and movie industry (and here, I mean not just file-sharing that infringes copyright but file-sharing as a distribution mechanism) and open source software has challenged the models of software development and distribution. Each of these mechanisms have removed, to some extent, the gatekeepers of content production and distribution, allowing an expansion of the sharing of ideas, content and culture. In the post-wikileaks world, the removal of the traditional gatekeepers of media and government has thrown the spotlight on government practices and the ability of the internet to spread information, culture and ideas has led to significant pressures being placed upon government (including, some would argue, the fall of several governments).

The reaction of government has predictably been to attempt to crack down on the internet through both censorship laws and the expansion of laws that further empower the private sector to move against the leveling influence of the internet (such as expanded copyright laws and domain seizure laws). In this case, at least citizens have the nominal right to reject these laws by excercising their rights at the ballot-box (and yes, practically this  is more difficult due to entrenched interests and money politics, but that's a rant for another day) and rejecting the government's intrusions.

However, more worryingly, a new danger to internet freedom has raised its ugly head and begun to exert its influence.  Another set of gatekeepers, ones that have not yet succumbed to the leveling influence of the internet, have begun to flex their muscle as gatekeepers of content and information and as these are private entities citizens have no way to counter their power.

I am referring to the financial gatekeepers of the internet. The duopoly of Visa and Mastercard (along with PayPal to a lesser extent) have begun to exert their power over the financial flows to entities and websites that they deem to be undesirable - and governments, recognising this power, have sought to use these gateways to censor and undermine websites and entities that threaten their power.

The most obvious recent case is that of PayPal, MasterCard and Visa halting payments to Wikileaks under the spurious auspice of 'violating their terms and conditions', something which the KKK or NAMBLA somehow don't do. It is quite obvious why the payments were halted - 'pressure' from the US government. There was no actual legal power upon which the government could rely, so they turned to the gatekeepers to block finances and attempt to hamstring Wikileaks. It was a frightening display of State power combined with the power of the gatekeepers brought to bear on an organisation which, to date, has not been shown to break any laws.

The UK government has also discovered that using the gatekeepers is easier than having  to pass legislation - since legislation has to go through that pesky transparency process known as parliamentary scrutiny.

In this case, the content industries, through their industry group IFPI, have bypassed the legislative step entirely and gone straight to enforcement - using  the police to protect their private interests through the police's "economic crime directive" which is ostensibly to combat fraud rather than copyright infringement. Basically, the police verify that the site appears to offer unlicensed copyrighted material and hand the details to Visa and MasterCard to effectively cut of the finances of these sites. There is no recourse, no appeal and no judicial oversight. Whether the accused have violated Visa or MasterCard's 'terms and conditions' is a matter for Visa and MasterCard and not for the courts.

It is not difficult to see this model being extended to other types of activities that either governments or big business find undesirable - they've already done it to Wikileaks. It is in a way similar to the corporate strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suit - a legal threat to close down criticism - but at least with a SLAPP suit there is a way to fight it in court. A financial SLAPP from Visa and MasterCard is almost impossible to defeat - it is their terms and conditions and as private entity they can choose who to do business with, or not.

The dominance of these financial gatekeepers represents a dangerous bottleneck to internet freedom. Although we still may be able to publish and distribute information - the ability to finance this distribution also forms an important part of this freedom.

It is often said that "freedom has a price", the problem is that it may become increasingly difficult to find a place to pay.

The end of history comes when it's revised: Neo-cons claim credit for democracy in the Middle East

Its been interesting to see the scrambling of the neo-cons as they try to make sense of the current situations in the Middle East and what this means for their ideological project. In a op-ed for the Washington Post, Elliot Abrams starts the neo-con revisionism of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.

All ideologies engage in this sort of historical revisionism - but the neo-con ideology is virtually built on it, you only have to read Fukoyama's "End of History" tripe to see it in full action. So with this in mind, its unsurprising to see Abrams touting the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia as a vindication for the Bush "freedom project" and a condemnation of the Obama administration's move towards a more realist foreign policy.

In his response to Abrams' selective sampling of history, Frank Kaplan, completely debunks the thesis that the Bush "freedom project" is in any way responsible for the current events in the Middle East. One of the points that is made by Kaplan (and the one that's the focus of this post) is that its not just a matter of supporting a vague notion of "freedom" that encourages transition to a democratic State, but having the institutions of democracy.

"...the annals of history show that democracy is hard to achieve and even harder to sustain; that it requires not just the expression of a human desires, but also the creation of political entities and social institutions—courts, legislatures, organized interest groups, and a free press—that can mediate conflicting desires with an aura of legitimacy and thus with minimal violence."

And it is this point that the neo-cons consistently fail to understand. I think that this policy blindness actually comes from the neo-con ideology itself - that to the neo-conservative these institutions are not necessary and are even a hinderance to their view of a liberal democracy. Their obsession with devolving social institutions into mere functional elements of the free market economy - such as the privatisation of education, medicine, removal of any sort of social safety net and deregulation of the economy belies the neo-con view that social/political institutions are merely economic ones.

The privatisation of Iraq is a case in point¹. The Coalition Provisional Authority dismantled any social/political institutions under the guise of removing Ba'athist elements and reoriented the entire Iraqi economy to a neo-con view of economic liberalism - privatise everything and remove any regulation of foreign investment (including allowing foreign entities to remove all profits from the country). These sets of orders have virtually made the Iraqi government and people completely subservient to foreign transnationals - hardly democratic institutions. It is interesting to note that one of the only laws to survive Saddam's regime is the one banning trade unions - organised labour is obviously bad for neo-con "freedom" as it may lead to people forming a social institution that could challenge their economic orthodoxy.

So it's not surprising  to see the neo-cons back to their old tricks of historic revisionism to suit their own ideological views. One would imagine that the rise of any new autocratic regimes from the current turmoil in the Middle East with any veneer of democracy would suffice for Bush's "freedom project" to be vindicated - so long as they're open for business.