As a young person concerned about issues broader than those of one’s immediate surroundings it is often difficult to feel engaged and active in significant global problems. Concerns such as climate change, human rights, class and gender equality and global poverty often feel beyond the scope of our influence. For many, sharing ideals and goals with multinational movements is often not enough to feel engaged and active in achieving change in areas that need to be addressed.

In fact, there are significant opportunities to engage locally in issues of global significance. One such example of a locally based and globally engaged organisation is the Oaktree Foundation. The Oaktree Foundation is and Australian non-Government organisation that is run entirely by volunteers under the age of 26 who are determined to do something real about extreme poverty. One of the best things about the Oaktree Foundation is that it engages young people in active responses to one of the most pressing concerns of our generation – extreme poverty.

This year I have been a participant in the Oaktree Foundation’s Generate program and have had the opportunity to undertake several projects and experiences that have, in some small ways, contributed to the local drive to increase our nation’s official development assistance to 0.7% of gross national income as well as the global push to end extreme poverty.

The Generate program engages young people in a number of awareness and fundraising activities with a wide range of benefits and tangible results. Not only is it a vehicle for educating young people about poverty and development, it is also an opportunity to equip them with the skills necessary to achieve real change about issues that they care deeply about. Organising petitions, a territory wide schools conference and letter writing campaigns were all successfully undertaken. As well as this, endeavours such as cocktail nights, barefoot barbeques and games nights were all important in raising money for overseas projects. One of the most successful events ran, in terms of raising both awareness and money, was a sponsorship walk around Lake Burley Griffin which raised $6000.

In terms of political endeavours as part of the Oaktree Foundation’s Generate program I had the opportunity to meet with several local and national politicians as well as hopefully influencing the decision making processes of many more. Sitting down and talking with those who are formulating government policy on such important areas was an invaluable experience..

Undertaking these activities was in many ways challenging but was also highly rewarding. Being able to actively participate in an area that I feel strongly about and for which I have great concerns was as fantastic as it was fulfilling. The opportunity to make an active contribution to such an important global movement should never be passed up easily.

The Oaktree Foundation’s Generate Program is designed for university students and will take place again in 2010. For more information and to apply, go to www.theoaktree.org.

By Jacob Mugavin

Australia is increasingly becoming an important source of leadership in its own region (South East Asia and the Pacific) but of course its role as a leader has been restricted because of the initial slow pace of economic development since federation in 1900 but that particular characteristic has changed greatly as many migrants from all over the world seek a safe haven and to benefit from the many opportunities for wealth creation and fair distribution of the benefits that Australian policies have made the economy strong and an acknowledged success.

Increasingly Australian affairs and policies are being studied closely all over the world because of their originality and the success when implemented to support often through well designed safety nets even those who go by the wayside and therefore are so vulnerable when it is believed most if not all should be well off especially given the wide range of resources and talent available to its community. For example Australians were amongst the first to have community wide franchise to vote and develop policies such as the national health care support program which originated far earlier than many other countries especially the United States and even some European nations. The long term wealth and welfare of the Australians is also no longer vulnerable to the problem of distance which restricted its interaction and contribution to other communities. Communication technologies for example which have revolutionised communication, public relations, news services and political accountability all around the world have negated these significant disadvantages especially in Australia’s case in this century.
Communications abundance using modern techniques however does not automatically ensure the triumph of either the theory or practice of a modern democracy such as Australia because sometimes circumstances also mean a degree of failure to be committed to stand by all comers for the sake of the development and maintenance of democracy within Australian boundaries and in its relationships with other communities.

The way forward for Australians now depends on filling the gap with leadership, in government, management and public affairs which can stem through the development of first rate leadership skills learned by its own experiences (especially personal development) and importantly with globally important nations such as the United States so that the changes resulting support the best attitudes and democratic thinking.
Importantly President Obama who has now held office in the United States for twelve months or so has become well known for helping the public leadership of the Australians in the nations Parliament to accept the challenges for the world find remedies to lead the Australians who preceded in the 1940’s and those still close to them especially in the Parliament. I have been lucky to have many conversations in public with Mr Obama and sometimes United States accredited diplomats regarding the then political and military perspective of America in the lead up to world war two, the consequential role of the United States in the Pacific and tough political controversies then local to Australia which for all purposes were restricted for many years until now to support the strategic role of the United States in Australia’s region and to restrict debate of America’s role in the Pacific and South Asia. Mr Obama and other United States Presidents has faced many quicksand situations because some politicians from many sides in Parliament came to believe they had been abandoned by America in the open discussions of these topics especially those issues stemming from the dismissal issues of the Whitlam Government in the 70’s.

I have been given the privilege many times to develop open dialogue with Mr Obama about what now appears to be true since the approach of world war two and then the subsequent conflict in the Pacific. He has striven to speak frankly and put right misconceptions which in my case led to human rights abuses, understood now by most Australians to protect me and my family when the national human rights consultation process would not support any method to put my rights in order because of the danger, controversies and deadly nature of the circumstances unless American leadership could find a positive way forward without loosing face, especially for past actions here. He has done so because every attempt to commence dialogue about my personal circumstances through the normal public arena of politics led others to wish well but back off completely from any clarification due to personal fears of controversies and sensations which scared them off.

Australians have been able to learn positively from American leadership. Most of the circumstances are known but not verified through the community grapevine. I am also dependent on some of this feedback also especially from colleagues in the various parties in the Parliament and very often with the help of the Australian Federal Police who have stood by me all the way. The situation is politically dangerous because widespread knowledge of the role of German relations in the run up to the war in Australia and subsequently were too hot for even well qualified political leadership. Consequently improvisation through dialogue with Obama and diplomats in public situations became the principle way forward and I am grateful for what has been done.
My role in the dismissal issues of the Whitlam government in the 1980s proved too threatening to the old German league (which had allies understood as the far right in the United States over a very long period). Even though I was overwhelmingly supported by Jimmy Carter in the dismissal problems of the Whitlam Government I became threatened even in my own home (then 25 kilometres from the downtown centre of Canberra) by the allied combination of the Fraser and Hawke leadership who individually and collectively wished to be hidden from public view because of the outcome of the war in this sector had not been made public and consequently such pressure could force the hand of America to leave them alone so the public would continue to have major misconceptions of their parties role and history. The environment at my place was one of hate and led to a plan to do me great harm including-murder Stephen Kendal. This situation was later made public by the Australian Federal Police and dialogue with President Bush in public. It appears even high level criminals (the mafia no less) were also present. The threat to me was resolved by police intervention-the person intending to be fatal for me personally was taken away to prison or shot in my defence-police never indicate exactly what took place but are very supportive. Prior to this I was confronted by American negotiators attending to a handover to the Hawke Labor government in my place of work which then was the offices of Australian Customs in Canberra. They were used to the final say and their confrontational attitude became clearer later when a group of the (now understood) Hawke negotiators (one from Canberra, feared now for his cruelty, dogmatism and criminal boasts-as now understood through the grapevine) and also negotiator from Adelaide on behalf of the old German political card –in a last man left standing approach- for example both appeared to have weapons-the German league negotiator even threatening fatal harm to me in the presence of a high level American negotiator so as to make certain for themselves continuation of the American position of the earlier role of America as in the 1940s. Due to the heat I backed off for a saner moment so also did the American negotiator who later made clear to an audience of diplomats that a long term position-for dialogue concerning what took place-was desirable and to take place firstly through the local government agencies of Australia-because the resultant dialogue could then be supportive of change because local government plays a key role in the selection and development of leaders in Australia. The Americans and myself both agreed to this understanding as the way to go.

It’s true that the old German leaguers from the 40s made it clear they would never change their views about me. Each of the principals who set the confrontations up at my home soon died after their role became known. There has been informed speculation that because of the danger to their health (the bandits were in their prime in the 1940s) could no longer function further-some say the unexpected outcome was their demise due to the intense stress, and poor health due to ageing-informed sources in Canberra have stated publicly that the confrontations between the bandits led to their own internal war (all this is like hearing of a nightmare) meaning that the group in at least some circumstances murdered each other-but thankfully not myself and my family

I am not a professional diplomat or negotiator therefore I have no special advice to support the many revelations which have taken place, some of which have a significant impact on the American reputation as the model democracy and military power. Mr Obama usually therefore speaks personally through a public means of communication but not physically present. This work has to be accepted at face value but there are technologies available to agencies such as the State Department for a negotiator to speak with a similar voice but this does not mean what is said should be interpreted as dishonest but it would certainly be convenient. All this has been done to resolve an impossible situation for Australians and myself. Prior to Obama dialogue by President Bush also directly relevant took place using the same open techniques but revealed a lot of angst on his part because much of the antagonism reflected in his statements and leadership through his then negotiator which could only result in further misgivings by Australians and the international audience of a President especially in the United States role which had to devise the Hawke Labor Government (in an atmosphere of intimidation) and which sided with the far right of the United States . Hence the community (including the many of overseas countries) have gradually developed a close knowledge of what has taken place. All this has happened because these power disputes of this nature follow surprising paths and unexpected outcomes and their developments can be communicated widely almost instantly.

The core problem for United States relations stems from what has been made public concerning the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942 off Australia’s east coast. Obama has admitted that at this stage in the Pacific there was a crossover war for the benefit of Germany for its own advantage. Apparently atomic weapons were used to resolve the battle and destroy the defending forces (which would have been British and allied forces). Although there is no denial, most say in Canberra that I should have known this myself but attempts to get confirmation from the United States and German authorities about this has led to no denial and still further dialogue by Obama to limit the damage to the United States, and those families in the Australian community which benefited from what became the United States takeover of this country done in secret, to protect then United States strategy and global dominance and access to Australia’s resources which are amongst the most vast in the world. When possible Obama acknowledges the wrong doing but maturity and continuing development of democracy here which has outgrown the original American approach and so is still of longer term benefit for Australia. As a result Australians have to look back with criticism in mind as they had a simplistic view of the United States as the saviour from Japan in the Coral Sea battle. The Coral Sea battle then was far more significant than the fall of Singapore in this part of the world. Obama was admirable to proceed to fix all this without loosing out all over the world and it could be that the news of this leadership role for Canberra politicians has led to acceptance of his role in the world peace process and as a consequence the Nobel Peace prize. It should of course be kept in mind that Australian leadership had only a modest international role in the world war two period and there was popular criticism of the United Kingdom because of its traditional dominance so the United States role in Australia which was imposed may have been welcome by some. The problem for the current generation is that the availability of transparency led by Obama has taken away unnecessary privilege and led to criticism of those who benefited politically because the forces were destroyed off the coast. This problem of transparency did not just conflict with vested interests in the political arena but also the reputations of the media that could trade on the inside running of current events the quick sands still stemming for America from ever making public the alliance made against defenders back in world war two.

Obama has been game to take the process further because the change of policy in the Coral Sea Battle reportedly led to the collapse of the United Kingdom as a world power since then because future direction would be given by Washington as in the case of Japan in the world war two conflicts also. This is contrary to what was spelled out as the special relationship then believed by so many to exist based on friendship and a mutual alliance which was argued in public by Winston Churchill especially in his speeches. The facts remain to be spelled out but according to what has been said Washington directed trials (as in Japan) which led to executions even of the Royal family. Authorities for example in the United Kingdom have never clarified whether this is true but also do not deny what has been said. Obama does not put barriers in people’s way to spell out what has now been passed on through the grapevine but no after verification. These aspects need to be considered but no local authority in the Australian government has assisted leaving all this much of the time to me and dialogue with the United States made possible by Obama because they see no personal benefit for them (knowing only how to fit in) as it requires a balanced call they are ill-equipped to make and the knowledge their parties in the 1940s accepted the Coral Sea reversal as an impossible circumstance (from which they profited) the discussion of which would ruin their role and loose any confrontational advantage with United States leaders who had insisted on secrecy in the 1940s and since then seeking as it was easier to seek patronage rather than develop the leadership skills required of an advanced modern nation which given time could approach the scope and reputation of a very significant nation corresponding eventually in many ways to the present role of the United States. In these circumstances Canberra continued not to fill the gaps for Australia with leadership as the locals lacked sufficient wisdom and competency.

Given the widespread knowledge and the Obama led process of dialogue the local film industry should be expected to examine the facts established to correct now what seems paranoid and over the top but cannot be done maturely without what has transpired so far and what needs yet to be done. The over reliance on secrecy, especially concerning the role of the United Kingdom (and its allies) if what has been said is true may still need a just peace as an outcome to be negotiated especially in the area of economic relations as so many United Kingdom assets and achievements may not yet be fully available for that community even if placed around the globe especially the United States. Also a commemoration day to celebrate those who perished in the Coral Sea battle, as known in the grapevine, is long overdue given its political and moral significance in light of what has been told to have occurred in reality here.

It’s said that the many political issues I have had to face are due unknown to me that I am a relative of the Royals put down in the 1940s-although again not verified-my role as a Trojan horse in Australia is explained best by this claim.

The role of Obama and me has been to fix paranoia in Canberra and also Washington about these issues, which continue to be faced openly in public dialogue in Australia. This should be welcome by all. My observations are well intended, had to be made under duress and the situations so impossible myself and family, because when the problems reach this scale my family and I would have no well being or rights, especially given what was intended for me and beyond my control for such a long period. Everyone in the establishment apart from the police backed off. Consequently I am so grateful Obama has done so much.

(An ideal reference paper on the present role of the media and techniques such as the internet are best found in a paper by a United Kingdom academic John Keane-Media Decadence and Democracy-a Senate Occasional Lecture, Parliament House, Canberra, Friday August 28th 2009)
 

Democracy and freedom of speech are usually seen as twins resulting from freedom of association and a free press. However in Washington, as elsewhere, the urgent is often the enemy of the important. John F Kennedy for example believed that the need for decision and action to resolve the pressure of crises frequently precludes the serious and careful study of fundamental and long-range problems that require foresighted leadership. The result often being that the neglected problems of the future suddenly in their true importance and become tough emergencies needing top leadership to resolve with improvisations that are too little or too late.

Very few should be made to believe that the world of democracy (especially in America) which has many power sharing institutions has ever been a level playing field for the media because more often than not elected and unelected representatives strive to define and determine news outcomes that can be a critical source of prestige or the success of foes who will not be tolerated. Even if information is limited politics does not fade away.

In the twenty first century global communication is the fundamental channel for news of all types with the result there is no immunity from news sources even though these may not be perfect and the standards of journalism idealised have not been achieved as desired. The saturation of the world’s communities with news however can lead to paranoia about policies of individual countries and the nature of international relations-certainly true in the case of the United States. The flaws and sometimes abandonment of journalistic standards does not necessarily lead to instances of permanent change, which becomes irreversible. People are now therefore in a stronger position to put right media issues if the theory and practice of democracy as in America are to be acceptable.

In the case of the United States there has developed strong concentration of ownership and therefore control of editorial opinion, which helps management efficiency of the news but can lead to significant news bias especially in cases where the community is dependent on the review process in the press and news broadcasting. It could be said that the result is so negative that the critical functions of the community and therefore its institutions cannot succeed because of the few alternative ideas in the market place.. In the American case one researcher found that in 1984 some fifty large companies controlled all media, by 1987 the number was only twenty-six, and then only ten by 1996 and by 2005 there were only fours principal media companies. It doesn’t look like this trend will not continue in the case of America and many other societies. The result too often is that the media barons and those protected by them fall in love with their status and own opinions because they are shielded from scrutiny

Many believe that in the case of America’s Barrack Obama, he is the first important public official to take on this establishment lack of thinking and fully take on board the modern weapons of public relations and politics. It seems he is especially game because he is also taking on board criticisms directly aimed at him as well as the flack from other observers and politicians on past US decisions including the relationship with Cuba and central and South America.

For example Obama’s role in Australia in leading a public dialogue process here since elected ,about world war two and events that followed in Australia (especially in Canberra) have been full and frank. He made it clear to me and an audience for example that the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942 was resolved using atomic weapons to the benefit of Germany in this sector. The weapons used destroyed defenders off the coast and should not be believed much longer as only a battle that prevented Japanese advance into Australian territory. The world war two censorship of this event (most likely organised by the United Kingdom) left the story telling to veterans and crafted history stories to diver the attention of the public for its own immediate and later advantage because neither the world or Australians would be able to savvy the significance for them and Europe especially the United Kingdom which is also blacked out news, familiar enough at war time and in Australia’s case now clearly not required.

However it’s best to say (and it is my experience) that negotiations with Obama (a force for good) have been done with the strong democratic profile of his party and supportive of the political beliefs of Australians who are not babies about government red tape, which can include managed news of all types. Obama in my view has done well to improve Australian democracy by taking on an establishment now brought down to earth about its own reputation especially its controversial role in the war years and subsequently (all embarrassing to the United States now) and even my personal safety because of deadly circumstances since living in Canberra having being brought up a Sydney guy with an eventual important role in politics-local, national and international.