The following articles were published in "The Guardian", newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia in its issue of Wednesday, March 1, 2000. Contact address: 65 Campbell Street, Surry Hills. Sydney. 2010 Australia. Phone: (612) 9212 6855 Fax: (612) 9281 5795. Email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Webpage: http://www.cpa.org.au Subscription rates on request. ****************************** 1. Editorial: Left unity, progressive unity. It's time! 3. Corporatising the armed forces 1. Editorial: Left unity, progressive unity. It's time! The Progressive Labour Party under the title of "Towards a Progressive Alliance" convened a one-day conference of progressive parties and community groups in Sydney last weekend. It brought together representatives of a number of political parties and community organisations, including some trade unions. Upwards of one hundred people took part. Matt McCarten, Director, NZ Alliance Party attended and spoke of the New Zealand experience and while warning against simply attempting to copy the NZ "model" advanced some excellent principle on which to build relationships between different organisations. There is a widespread understanding developing of the necessity to overcome differences between left and progressive organisations and individuals if the offensive by the conservative forces in Australia is to be turned back. This process of co-operation and unity is also to be seen in the international trade union movement with the growing of solidarity actions on issues held in common. Just recently a trade union conference was held in Canberra which brought together a number of unions from other countries to discuss the common struggle against the transnational Rio Tinto. We are all aware of the role played by many overseas trade unions in support of the Maritime Union of Australia in its dispute with Patrick. There seem to be some principles that could be adopted which would be helpful in creating a productive climate among organisations and individuals. In the past the CPA has put forward some ideas on this question which are worth repeating as prospects for more joint action improve. 1. That every organisation and the individuals involved must approach others on the basis of equality, mutual respect and honesty. 2. There must be consultation at each step of the unity process to ensure agreement on policies, tactics and actions. 3. An atmosphere must be created in which the results of agreements and steps taken are frankly discussed and evaluated. Mistakes will be made which should be recognised and corrected during the course of work. 4. Agreements by co-operating organisations must be reached by consensus. Voting should be resorted to only as a last resort and be limited to procedural matters. 5. Where agreement is not reached on an issue, this issue should be put aside with each organisation free to express its view on the issue using its own facilities. 6. Once agreements are reached, all organisations help to popularise and carry them out. 7. Ideological differences should not stand in the way of co- operation on issues held in common. 8. A contest of ideas between co-operating organisations is natural and inevitable. This contest or any criticism of one organisation by another should be stated in a manner that does not undermine the unity achieved on agreed issues but should contribute to clarity and to strengthening the developing unity. 9. Each organisation is free to publish its views and carry out activities in support of its own policies that are not the subject of agreements. 10. Discussion and agreement at leadership level be backed up and deepened by cooperation at all levels of the organisations involved. Even such principles need to be discussed among cooperating organisations and agreed to or modified as well as working out the issues upon which there is fairly widespread agreement. Some of the current hot issues are: * defeat of the GST and the adoption of a progressive tax system; * opposition to privatisation; * support for Medicare and the maintenance and strengthening of the public hospital system; * free public education; * repeal of anti-trade union laws; * full-time work for the unemployed and all who are available for full-time jobs; * women's equality and rights; * recognition of and land rights for indigenous people; * multiculturalism and opposition to racism; * protection of the environment; * an independent foreign policy, no involvement in foreign military pacts. There are very few left and progressive parties, community organisations and individuals who would not give these issues a tick. However, it is not simply a question of someone preparing a list but discussing them, getting agreement and also working out what can be done about them. It is a good time to make progress on the all-important question of unity. As the trade union slogan has it: "United we stand, divided we beg! END 2. Corporatising the armed forces With considerable press coverage in the middle of February, Dr Allan Hawke, the Secretary to the Department of Defence presented a "due diligence" report to a Defence Watch Seminar. by Peter Symon The press mainly reported the criticisms he made of the present situation in the Department of Defence and his declaration that the Department had a "credibility problem". Typically, the daily press gave little analysis of his statement and readers and TV viewers would have little idea of what the major content of his report was all about. Dr Hawke was appointed only six months ago by the Howard Government as Secretary to the Department of Defence following the sacking of the previous Secretary. Taking into account that Dr Hawke will have billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to spend and will wield considerable power in his new job it is necessary that the direction of his thinking be known. In a nutshell, it is about corporatising the armed forces. Throughout his report he uses the language of the corporations and his intention is to introduce their "values" and methods into the defence forces. Corporate language He uses such terms as "market tested", "corporate plan", "a CEO responsibility", the "`Defence product'", the Government's "owner-shareholder hat", "corporate Information Technology systems", "cost accounting", "corporate performance assessment", "corporate support groups", "personal performance agreements" (individual work contracts?), "our corporate governance framework", "value added", "career management scheme", etc. No-one can be against efficiency in the Defence Department or in any �other area of government, so the real question is: "Where is this corporatisation talk taking the Australian armed forces?" The Government's strategic objectives and their political underpinning are going to be spelt out in a Defence "White Paper" which is now being prepared. Dr Hawke did not touch on these questions except to say right from the beginning of his talk that the "strengths plus our current capability, community support for Defence, and the US alliance provide a platform that we can build on." He described Australia's strategic environment as "increasingly dynamic". Dr Hawke is well aware that the "White Paper" is going to set the stage for the involvement of Australia in military adventures outside of Australia's shores and in the Asian region or even further afield in fulfillment of our obligations to the US alliance. Of course there will be due talk of "peace-keeping" obligations decided by the United Nations, but when the chips are down, the Australian Government will accept whatever role is demanded by the US. It should never be forgotten that all NATO governments participated in the bombing of Yugoslavia which was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. This was an act of blatant aggression and NATO countries decided deliberately NOT to take the matter to the UN Security Council. Dr Hawke's job is to help prepare for these possibilities in circumstances where the cost of hi-tech weapons and their frequent replacement with "up-dates" has become enormous. He is faced with the fact that the cost of these weapons is not covered by the means being provided by the Government. He says: "The current state of Defence's financial situation ... might best be described as parlous... "The plain fact is that Defence has not been able to match the ends it is trying to achieve with the means it has been given to do so ..." Is this a prelude to demands for a considerably increased allocation of taxpayer's money for alleged defence needs or is it signalling a process where defence is to be financed by corporate sponsors and investors or fee-for-service - as we are witnessing with state police forces? Dr Hawke continues: "Not only am I responsible for delivering the `Defence product' to the Government (Government wearing its purchaser hat), but I am also responsible for ensuring the financial and other sustainability of the Government's investment in the business (Government wearing its owner/shareholder hat)." More money Dr Hawke gives a list of weapons already on the order board. They include Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft, ANZAC helicopters, Amphibious Transport ships (to land troops in someone else's country?), Electronic Warfare systems, etc. He comments that "new projects have been approved at a rate significantly higher than what is affordable in the long-term - and that's just in terms of the acquisition costs." The point should be made here that the use of the word "defence" is misleading. It is not really about the necessary defence needs of Australia but the class objectives of the Government to make the country (and the world) safe for the corporations of this and other countries. At the present time about $11 billion is allocated annually for the needs of the armed forces. For this sort of money it should be possible to have highly trained, well equipped forces, yet when it came to providing forces for East Timor, it was found that to send upwards of 4,000 personnel to East Timor stretched Australia's capabilities to the limit. Dr Hawke said that there has already been "massive change" in the Defence organisation and immediately goes on to record the fact that in the last 15 years the ADF has been reduced from 70,000 to around 40,000 on the civilian side. Today, there's some 50,000 in the ADF and around 16,000 in the Department. (An overall reduction of about 44,000 personnel but there has been no reduction in the defence budget.) In the last ten years says Dr Hawke, over "11,000 military and civilian positions have been market tested [process of competitive tendering and contracting out] with average savings in excess of 30 per cent." This is enough to gladden the heart of any Chief Executive Officer. Their claims to fame are often related to the number of jobs that can be done away with. Dr Hawke says that there is "widespread dissatisfaction with Defence's performance in Canberra" but does not draw the conclusion that at least some of this dissatisfaction may be due to this process of job disposal and the extra workload that this usually implies. More "cost reductions and other efficiency measures" are to come according to Dr Hawke. Selling the product He is not satisfied with the way the Defence establishment has communicated with others. "The Government and taxpayers should know what Defence is doing, where it is heading, and where their money is being spent", he says. But there is little in the statement to give any enlightenment about this. He does mention the debacle of the submarines but only in terms of it being "our biggest project risk" and not in terms of the wastage and corporate incompetence that it actually represents. Dr Hawke says that "in these days of instant global communications ... as Australia's strategic environment becomes increasingly dynamic - as we come to crunch time on some crucial decisions about the future role and shape of Australia's Defence Organisation - this becomes even more important ... And having to `sell' ourselves in a modern society is not something we are used to doing." Whether the people of Australia are prepared to buy the sort of policies and objectives that Australian governments and its US ally have pursued in the past and will want to "sell" in the future is doubtful. Dr Hawke speaks about "transparency" but this is exactly what the propaganda machine of the ruling class does not intend to do. Nor will transparency be a consideration when an Australian Government decides to send military forces overseas to intervene in some conflict or other or play the part of aggressor as in the case of Vietnam and Korea before that. For years Australian governments covered up for the Indonesian aggression and occupation in East Timor. In fact, Australian governments actually condoned this aggression. This was not any fault of the communication skills of those in the army or in the government but a determined policy pursued by governments. Long-term objective There may also be a long-term objective which logically flows from the corporatisation of the armed forces about which neither Dr Hawke nor anyone else will speak. The corporatisation of various publicly owned enterprises have invariably been a prelude to those enterprises being privatised and handed over to private capital for their profit. Increasingly, even functions of government are suffering this fate. Why not Australia's military forces as well? There are already many more private police and security forces than in the state police departments. Prisons are being privatised. Various government departments are being privatised - the CES readily comes to mind. Why not the army? It may be thought to be unthinkable but there are already in existence �various privately run mercenary forces such as was recruited by the PNG Government to wage war in Bougainville. As the big corporations take over more and more publicly owned enterprises and more and more functions of government, the urge to exercise outright control of the armed forces will become irresistible especially as the resistance of the people grows to the policies being pursued and more and more countries throw off the yoke of capitalism and imperialism. The corporatisation of the armed forces is a necessary prelude to them becoming Australian Defence Forces Pty Ltd. Far-fetched? We shall see! END -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
