苏州半永久培训

Default utility Image

Our biggest threat is not the Islamic State but inequality One of the hallmarks of the Age of Fear in which we live is that everywhere we turn there are not only new threats, but with the arrival of each one there is also a vast orchestra of technologies available to make it roar and rumble and make us tremble. The threats are so myriad and the cacophony of alarms and ominous analyses so loud that it becomes impossible to discern which threats should really concern us and which are less important. Minor risks rise up on the waves of our other worries until they appear just as big as some threats many times their size. Recently, we watched as Ebola stormed into our consciousness because of one particularly unfortunate case and fatality in the United States. This is not to minimise the scale of the threat in the few West African countries in which the outbreak is primarily contained – Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. But in the United States, the threat was minimal, yet the threat amplifiers on the sound system of the country’s national consciousness (talk radio, cable news, social media) were all turned up, This Is Spinal Tap-style, to 11. The Islamic State (IS) is another recent threat that has rocked our world – a threat so great that one acronym hasn’t been enough to describe it. A mobile, well-resourced, social-media-savvy hybrid terrorist group that is part insurgency and part blitzkrieging desert army, it warrants much of the unease it has triggered. As a modern terrorist group, however, it has been adept at using 21st-century media to put fear in the hearts of observers everywhere, whether by videotaping beheadings, tweeting out victories and taunts, or conducting a massive recruitment operation complete with slick digital magazines and online annual reports to make the group appear dangerous and entrepreneurial at the same time. The Islamic State has sought to be the Apple computing of global terrorism – choosing a black livery instead of a white one – and to a disturbing extent the group achieved its goal. Indeed, the degree to which it moved so quickly to unsettle us and the geopolitics of the region only amplified the edge it held by making us feel ill-prepared and on the defensive (because we were). Putting the Islamic State Threat in Perspective But the Islamic State is also an example of a threat that, if not overstated, has been largely misconstrued. It is, after all, only an organisation of perhaps 20,000 to 35,000 fighters. It has very limited resources. Its hold on the cities it has claimed is tenuous and to a large degree desperate, depending more on threats than on the active support of the majority of local populations. It is not a major threat to the residents of the United States and certainly not anything like the existential threats Americans faced in the last century. We, however, have applied the transitive property of terrorism to elevate its status: We have come to see the Islamic State as the new al Qaeda, and al Qaeda, despite being a relatively small organisation with limited capabilities, had previously been elevated to the role of America’s new Enemy No. 1, occupying a position once held by a real existential threat, the Soviet Union, which had inherited its root-of-all-evil mantle from the Nazis. Therefore, the Islamic State came to prematurely occupy the place of Enemy No. 1, previously held by Osama bin Laden, the USSR, and the Third Reich, along with many of the rights, privileges, and scary evening-news music licks and logos thereto appertaining. Is the Islamic State a real threat? Yes, of course, a serious one. But it’s not as much of a threat at least for now to Americans and their way of life as it is to American interests and America’s allies in the Middle East and elsewhere. Were the Islamic State to establish a permanent radical state in the Middle East, that could be destabilising for years. Further, such a state could serve as a petri dish for global mayhem, a place where the other real risk associated with the group — that of its growing army of foreign fighters — could be cultivated, made more dangerous, and released on different corners of the region or the world. Also, as happened with al Qaeda, the Islamic State’s success is already breeding the sincerest form of flattery among the world’s really bad guys — other terrorist cells are rebranding themselves as Islamic State chapters or followers. Just this week, one such group in Egypt proclaimed its ties to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s men and goals, and this too could prove to be deeply destabilising if it goes unchecked. That’s why the efforts of the United States and its coalition partners are warranted and why it is so important that they are successful. But there are other threats beyond those that dominate the nightly news or are seemingly permanently plastered on your Facebook wall. The threat of the Islamic State is only a subset of the growing, globally spreading threat of militant extremism. Indeed, that threat is made more complicated for many of America’s allies because today it takes multiple forms — that of the Shiite extremism of the Iranian revolutionary regime and that of the Sunni extremists such as the Islamic State, Hamas, Ansar al-Sharia, al Qaeda in its multiple regional incarnations, al-Nusra Front, the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, etc. Indeed, a greater danger lies with thinking we “solve” our problems by turning back the Islamic State when doing so may actually empower some of these other groups and won’t deal with the massive, long-term problem that the spread of such extremism represents. The Geopolitical Risks on the Horizon Other threats that are real and easy to underestimate given the challenges to our bandwidth range from the deterioration within Pakistani politics that has made that nuclear power more susceptible to extremist takeover than ever before (it’s not imminent, just closer than it has been), to the potential risks associated with how falling oil prices might squeeze a Russian economy that is already in bad shape, thus potentially provoking threatening behavior from that country’s already aggressive regime. On top of which there’s also the upheaval that might be associated with regime change that could go awry in Saudi Arabia as well as the potential for military conflict were Iran to prove yet again to be unreliable with regard to its promises to stop its nuclear weapons program. But unsettling as these risks are, there is another tier of threats that are even more pernicious because they come with few headlines, approaching gradually, silently, without benefit of television logos, Internet memes, or shouting matches among worried TV pundits. These include those associated with gradually rising powers such as China that gain influence and then exert influence subtly. Or those associated with climate change and the potentially huge upheavals that shifting weather patterns may cause in coastal societies and to global food supplies, water resources, and other vital underpinnings of life on the planet. Or those associated with another global economic crunch or the growing risk of cyberconflicts, the consequences of which we barely understand and are ill-prepared to grapple with. In each case, these threats are simmering like that proverbial frog sitting in a pot of increasingly hot water. They may reach a boiling point before we know it and can jump out to save ourselves. But Closer to Home, the Trends Are Even More Unsettling But beyond these international risks, there are risks closer to home for Americans, profound threats that are plain to see and, to my mind, are ignored to a remarkable, almost unfathomable degree. These are problems that already impact the lives of hundreds of millions in a deeply negative and life-changing way. Yet few herald them, and those who do essentially do little more than wave their hands about them. They write op-eds. They lament. And their words fall on deaf ears because it is so clearly not in the interest of any of those in power to hear them. These are urgent challenges that do not involve armies or terrorists but touch every one on either side of Main Street. Indeed, whatever we may say right now based on today’s headlines, it is these issues that will be absolutely central to the 2016 U.S. presidential race. They are the sticking points of the new American economy, the disturbing realities that have made the recent economic recovery unlike any other. Indeed, they are the reasons that a U.S. president who has an immense amount to be proud about in his domestic and international economic agenda — from engineering an overall recovery to health-care reform, from financial-services reform to tapping into an energy revolution, from driving export growth to overseeing a recovery in the housing market — has not been able or willing to tout those very real gains. They have to do with the fact that despite steady job growth rivaling the gains of the Clinton years, and despite a booming stock market and a rising GDP outstripping those of the world’s other major developed economies, wages are not rising and the quality of the jobs being created is disturbingly low. We are, in fact, seeing America’s first major post-recession recovery that has bypassed its middle class. Ninety percent of the gains have gone to the top 10 percent of the population. Something is broken. Something is badly wrong. The most grotesque element of this threat to the American dream, to America’s sense of itself and to its fundamental social cohesion, is growing inequality. In fact, it is inequality at historic levels. As reported in the most recent issue of the Economist, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America’s population is about to achieve a level of wealth equivalent to that of the bottom 90 percent. That’s just over 300,000 people with holdings equal to that of some 280 million. Those wealthy few will control 22 percent of the wealth. The bottom 90 percent, everybody essentially, will also have 22 percent. This in turn means that the top 10 percent of the U.S. population will control 78 percent of America’s wealth. Almost eight out of every 10 dollars of net worth. This is not a uniquely American problem. The World Economic Forum, having conducted a survey of almost 2,000 global leaders, reports that they view rising inequality as the most threatening trend facing the globe in 2015. This is not a uniquely American problem. The World Economic Forum, having conducted a survey of almost 2,000 global leaders, reports that they view rising inequality as the most threatening trend facing the globe in 2015. In all 44 countries polled by the Pew Research Center, majorities believe that inequality is a major problem in their countries, and in most of those countries (28 of them), they consider it a very big concern. The global numbers are pretty gut-wrenching too: Just 0.7 percent of the population controls 41 percent of the wealth. Roughly 70 percent have just 3 percent of the wealth. But the American case is special no matter how you slice it. But the American case is special no matter how you slice it. It is because, for example, wage disparities between average workers and CEOs are greater in the United States than in any other place in the world – by a lot, more than five times than in the next-worse nation (Venezuela). While U.S. workers, according to a recent article in the Harvard Business Review that analyzes a new study appearing in Perspectives on Psychological Science, think the difference between average wages and those of the boss should be about seven times, in fact it is 354 times. An analysis by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers puts the situation in further relief. The top 1 percent earn almost 20 percent of the income (as distinguished from the wealth figures noted above, which refer to assets held), which is much more than in any other developed country and, as the Washington Post reports, “it isn’t even close.” Why Inequality Will Trump the Islamic State in 2016 Worse, the trends are not encouraging. The deeper we get into the recovery, the worse many of these metrics are becoming. Wages are stuck. Inequality is creeping steadily upward. In fact, the situation has become so bad that the American political party that has in recent years been seen as the champion of Wall Street and fat cats, the Republican Party, scored many of its 2014 election victories by emphasising the gaps in the flawed economic recovery (which the Republicans, of course, blamed on President Barack Obama.) According to a Slate article by William Saletan, “Republicans won big in the 2014 elections…. But they didn’t do it by running to the right. They did it, to a surprising extent, by embracing ideas and standards that came from the left…. I’m talking about the core of the liberal agenda: economic equality.” This is a harbinger. Given this greatest of threats to average Americans – the threat that there is no better future out there for them and their children and that they will toil away producing profits to be enjoyed only by a privileged handful of Americans – we can count on the political debate in the United States for the next two years to turn less and less on the Islamic State or Ebola and more and more on the time bomb placed at the foundations of the U.S. economy – an economic engine of division and destruction that is gradually pulling the country apart and instilling anger and frustration in many of its citizens (especially those in the bottom fifth, those who are not only out of the money but consigned to inescapable lifetimes of struggle and subsistence). For candidate Hillary Clinton (who will certainly be the most well-versed and competent of any in the field in terms of national security and foreign-policy issues by virtue of her tenure as secretary of state), there will be a special challenge. She will have to offer an economic approach that is seen as something new, focused more on these issues of inclusion, opportunity- and quality job creation, rather than the message of growth and placating Wall Street that marked her husband’s tenure as president. (Note: I served as a senior economic official in Bill Clinton’s administration.) She will need a new team because those associated with her husband and Obama are too closely associated with Wall Street and bailouts and policies favoring the few, even if that is, to a large degree, an unfair oversimplification. Indeed, her biggest challenge over the next year will be convening a group of new faces with new ideas to tackle this greatest of all threats to the United States. Her competition will likely focus on the same issues – whether that competition consists of centrists like Jeb Bush or relative renegades like Rand Paul. Because at the end of the day, despite the din of media alerts and the flashing lights of government terrorism warnings, the real insecurity that haunts Americans late at night as they contemplate their futures involves not terrorists or rogue nations, but political and financial institutions at home that have been captured by the self-interested few and that are seeking to squeeze the hope out of Americans as no terrorist could do. Rothkopf is CEO and editor of the FP Group. His next book, “National Insecurity: American Leadership in an Age of Fear” is scheduled to be released Oct. 28. (c) 2013, Foreign Policy

Default utility Image

Obama ‘shirt-fronted’ Abbott on climate: Shorten Labor leader Bill Shorten says US President Barack Obama has shirt-fronted Tony Abbott on climate change at the G20 leaders summit in Brisbane. After striking a deal with China to slash emissions last week, Mr Obama stole the limelight on Saturday when he urged developed countries to do their bit in the “global fight” against climate change. In a direct appeal to Australia, the president warned natural wonders like the Great Barrier Reef were under threat and urgent action was needed from all. Mr Obama also announced the US would give $US3 billion ($A3.3 billion) to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund to help poorer countries deal with the impacts of climate change, such as rising seas, higher temperatures and extreme weather. Mr Shorten said the prime minister had wanted to avoid talk of climate change at the Brisbane meeting. “There was a lot of talk about shirt-fronting coming up to this G20 – it would appear that in the nicest and most articulate way, Barack Obama has shirt-fronted Tony Abbott and said `Come on Australia, lift your game’,” Mr Shorten told Sky News from the G20 forum. “As I’ve been meeting with world leaders, they all believe that we should be talking about climate change.” Treasurer Joe Hockey said he did not accept that climate change was one of the biggest impediments to economic growth. “No. Absolutely not,” Mr Hockey told ABC television on Sunday. He said economic reform needed to take priority over dealing with carbon emissions. “We cannot afford to deal with climate change if governments are in recession or if countries are facing huge structural challenges,” he said. The treasurer said China was going to increase its carbon emissions until 2030, despite a deal with the United States to act together on climate. “Australia is doing the same amount of work on climate change as the United States over a 30-year period,” Mr Hockey said. “What we are focused on is growth and jobs and we want people to have the jobs that give them the chance to have an income, that give them a chance in many parts of the world to lift themselves out of poverty.” He said US President Barack Obama was yet to get his deal with China through a hostile Congress. “So far he hasn’t had great success.” Foreign Minister Julie Bishop cast Mr Obama’s climate push as an attempt to shore up his legacy in the final two years of his presidency. She expected other countries to make similar statements ahead of the United Nations climate change meeting in Paris next year. But citing the failed Copenhagen talks in 2009, she questioned whether the tough talk on emissions would lead to concrete action. “The big issue… will be whether countries take the step from making statements about what they are going to do to actually committing to legally binding targets and commitments,” she told Network Ten. “It was all very well to talk about it (in 2009), but people didn’t commit to legally binding targets that would be backed by legally enforceable penalties.”

Default utility Image

Scratchy All Blacks hold out Scotland The error-ridden All Blacks received the thumbs up from coach Steve Hansen, despite their difficulty quelling Scotland 24-16 on Saturday at Murrayfield. In one of the least impressive New Zealand displays in recent times, they needed a late try from lock Jeremy Thrush to avoid their first loss to Scotland in 30 Tests dating back to 1905. The second-string tourists, featuring 13 personnel changes from last week’s 24-21 defeat of England, never found their rhythm against eighth-ranked Scotland. As well as struggling to handle a ball made slippery by cold evening dew, the world champions made a hash of numerous lineouts and battled to puncture a home defence which was stout throughout. With five-eighth Dan Carter struggling for rhythm in his first start for nearly a year, the All Blacks were guilty of trying to be too enterprising without getting the required dominance up front. However, Hansen was pleased with how his inexperienced side handled a step up in intensity from the last Test many of them played – the easy win over the United States two weeks ago. “It was the perfect game for us … this one was a big step up,” Hansen said. “We couldn’t have asked for a better game because they had to earn the right to win it. They had to stay mentally strong and came through very, very well, I thought.” Scotland showed last week’s 41-31 defeat of Argentina was no fluke but ran out of energy in the dying stages. There were mixed emotions for their New Zealand coach Vern Cotter. “When you look at what the players did on the paddock, it’s hard for the coach to be unhappy when you see that type of thing,” he said. “They’re a young group and they weren’t far away. “But we’re also honest enough to say, next time, we’ll have to do better.” All Blacks No.8 Victor Vito hobbled off with a pulled calf muscle just before halftime, having earlier scored a spectacular solo try. It came in the 10th minute, shrugging off one tackle after receiving a loose pass and using his searing pass to hold other defenders at bay on a 45m run to the left corner. Scotland were soon 7-5 ahead when winger Tommy Seymour intercepted a pass from All Blacks captain Richie McCaw and raced 40m. Carter began to find his range, slotting three penalties to one from Scotland captain Greig Laidlaw as New Zealand dominated the remainder of the first half to lead 14-10. Halfback Laidlaw reduced the margin to one point soon after the break with a penalty. It stayed that way for 20 minutes before Colin Slade – who moved in from the wing to replace Carter – landed a penalty, which Laidlaw immediately matched. Laidlaw had a chance to put his team ahead with 10 minutes remaining but his first miss of the night, from a handy position, was followed by the dagger blow from man of the match Thrush, who drove over from close range.

Default utility Image

Bell sent off course at Ballarat triathlon Australian triathletes Jamie Huggett and Luke Bell have shared second place in a dramatic end to the inaugural 70. 3 Ballarat event. While German Michael Raelert was a clear winner of the half-Ironman distance race, the event director had to make a ruling on who finished next. Also on Sunday, much-admired triathlete Belinda Granger raced for the last time in Australia at Challenge Shepparton over the same half-Ironman distance. She finished fourth as fellow Australians Josh Amberger and Annabel Luxford took the titles. In Ballarat, it initially looked like a clear-cut case of Huggett posting the second-fastest run leg and overcoming a deficit of more than five minutes to take second from Bell. But it then emerged that Bell was sent the wrong way during the run. When an analysis of the race data showed Huggett and Bell would probably have had a sprint finish, the decision was taken to make second place a dead heat. A week after dominating the Mandurah 70.3 race, Raelert was again in a class of his own and won the 1.9km swim, 90km cycle and 21.1km triathlon in three hours 48 minutes 33 seconds. Huggett and Bell were given a finishing time of 3:57:33. Canadian Melanie McQuaid had to miss Mandurah because of a chest infection, but she bounced back on Sunday to win in 4:19:40 – more than seven minutes up on Australian Madeleine Oldfield. Poor weather made conditions tough at Ballarat and Shepparton. Amberger overcame the wet roads to win Shepparton in 3:45:16, three minutes up on dual Olympian Brad Kahlefeldt. Luxford dominated the women’s race in 4:18:04, finishing more than eight minutes ahead of Kahlefeldt’s Czech partner Radka Vodickova. Australian Michelle Wu was next and then Granger, 43, closed out her last local race before retirement with a 4:33:58 finish. Granger is one of Australian triathlon’s most respected and popular figures. Apart from an impressive race resume that featured the 2005 Challenge Roth title and four top-10 Hawaiian Ironman finishes, Granger has done more than most to promote the sport.

Default utility Image

How clothes are refashioning our art galleries By Sally Gray Australia’s art galleries are currently enthralled by fashion. In Melbourne Jean Paul Gaultier: From the Sidewalk to the Catwalk and Express Yourself: Romance Was Born for Kids, are both at NGV; Adelaide’s Fashion Icons: Masterpieces from the Musée des Arts Décoratifs is at the Art Gallery of South Australia and Brisbane’s Future Beauty: 30 Years of Japanese Fashion, is showing at GOMA. The fashion for fashion exhibitions is not confined to major state galleries. Bendigo Art Gallery has just closed Undressed: 350 years of Underwear in Fashion, after establishing a strong fashion exhibition niche by partnering with London’s V&A Museum to show The Golden Age of Couture: Paris and London 1947-57 in 2009. On the west coast, an exhibition created by Sydney’s Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, Frock Stars: inside Australian Fashion Week, has been showing at the Western Australian Museum. Most of these result from carefully negotiated partnerships with international museums: the V&A; the Musée des Arts Décoratifs, Paris; the Montreal Museum of Fine Art; the Kyoto Costume Institute, and fashion houses such as Maison Jean Paul Gaultier. They are part of a worldwide trend for fashion exhibitions in art museums.   (Andreja Pejic in The Boy Can’t Help It for 7 Hollywood magazine, Fantasy Edition 2013 Dévoreuse corset, Confession of a Child of the Century collection, Jean Paul Gaultier, haute couture, autumn-winter 2012-2013. © Alix Malka)   Some of this emerges from a longstanding commitment to collecting fashion and textiles. The critically acclaimed and spectacularly well-attended exhibition, Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty, at the Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in 2011 was enriched by the museum’s well established collecting and research focus. We all have bodies, we all wear clothes; we all observe others wearing clothes. Whether people acknowledge an interest in fashion or not everyone is surrounded by it. Likewise, the NGV fashion exhibitions sit logically within its collection and research directions. But the fashion for fashion exhibitions is not confined to art or design museums with significant fashion collections. So what’s going on? We all have bodies, we all wear clothes; we all observe others wearing clothes. Whether people acknowledge an interest in fashion or not everyone is surrounded by it. People interested in fashion no longer rely on magazines and image blogs to keep up; live streaming of couture and ready to wear collections gives instant access to what’s being shown, who the celebrities are, which designers are doing what.   (Comme des Garçons, dress, ready to wear, Autumn-Winter 2012-2013, Les Arts Décoratifs, Mode et Textile collection, purchased with the support of Louis Vuitton, 2012. Right : Valentino, evening suit, haute couture, Autumn-Winter 2007-2008, Les Arts Décoratifs, Mode et Textile collection, in association with Valentino, 2008. Thierry Dreyfus for Eyesight Group.) Looking at dress and adornment can be aesthetic, sensual and visceral; experienced and understood in different ways by people of all ages and genders. Museum fashion exhibitions amplify varieties of visual experience and give access to research-based fashion knowledge. They provide a rare glimpse into the materiality of high fashion objects; haute couture garments and textiles; volume and drape; colour, texture, surface; and details of inventive highly skilled artisanship. Visitors to exhibitions such as Jean Paul Gaultier in Melbourne and Fashion Icons in Adelaide, where the garments are shown without the impediment of glass, can see close-up the allure and charisma of these material objects. Museum audiences understand how fashion’s periodic ruptures – in conception, style, materials – are linked to cultural history, music, street trends and other manifestations of zeitgeist. Audience interest in fashion objects, processes, history, technologies, internal systems, narratives and mythologies is parallelled by contemporary critical knowledge emerging from the burgeoning academic field of Fashion Studies.   (Comme des Garçons (Rei Kawakubo) / Spring/Summer 1997 / Collection: Kyoto Costume Institute. Photo: Takashi Hatakeyama) Fashion scholarship explores aesthetics, gender, sexuality, class, custom and culture, not to mention economic history, textile technology, film and popular culture, and any number of related questions. Why wouldn’t people be fascinated by exhibitions which augment knowledge and pleasure in this field? New course development, scholarly journals, and almost exponential rates of scholarly and popular publishing are occurring simultaneously with the growth of fashion exhibiting in museums. The exhibition phenomenon itself is critically contextualised in publications such as Fashion and Museums: Theory and Practice (2014) and Exhibiting Fashion: Before and After 1971 (2014). All of this is occurring at a time when hierarchies – what is deemed worthy or unworthy of museum space, what is considered fine or applied art – are collapsing. When Art Gallery of New South Wales curator, Jane de Teliga, presented her exhibition Art Clothes in 1980, she told me “a lot of noses were out of joint” about the idea of fashion in the gallery. Some of her colleagues thought it inappropriate for fashion to share museum space with art. Some still roll their eyes, reiterating familiar themes of inanity, frivolity and superficiality that have accompanied fashion since its modern inception in the 19th century. Nonetheless Art Clothes was quickly followed at The Art Gallery of NSW by the ambitious Fabulous Fashion 1907-67 from the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (1981) and Yves Saint Laurent Retrospective (1987).   (Anastasia Klose, One stop knock-off shop 2013, T-shirts, posters, mugs, furniture, lucky cats, dimensions (variable). © Anastasia Klose courtesy Tolarno Galleries, Melbourne) Contemporary artist Anastasia’s Klose’s One-Stop Knock-Off Shop installation , at the NGV’s Melbourne Now (2013/14) placed art and fashion in their rightfully ambiguous context, in which the cultural interface and the cash nexus of art and fashion are playfully unmasked. Today’s museum directors have to generate exhibition ticket sales, partners, sponsors and, above all, positive publicity. They have to keep established audiences, attract new ones and seed the audiences of the future through programs for kids. They need to create an air of excitement and relevance around their institutions. All of this while maintaining cultural integrity and supporting the original research which creates new knowledge. Whether fashion is art; whether the art world is now all about fashion; whether fashion is commercialising the art museum are questions much less interesting than the immediacy, provocation, knowledge and pleasure we gain from the fashion for fashion. Sally Gray is a Visiting Scholar in Cultural History at UNSW Art & Design, she has in the past received research funding from the Australian Research Council.

Default utility Image

Putin shakes off international anger Even the koala didn’t seem to want a bar of Vladimir Putin at the G20. But the marsupial’s reluctant cuddles were the only ones the Russian leader got at the summit of world leaders. Amid ongoing international anger over Russia’s alleged involvement of the downing of flight MH17 and its backing of pro-Moscow separatists in Ukraine, there was no love on the ground for the president. He faced the hostile environment with his trademark stony face and then did what everyone does when the going is tough – staged a hasty exit. His plane sailed off into Brisbane’s humid and overcast skies before Prime Minister Tony Abbott had ended the summit with the release of the gathering’s final communique. But Putin was still on the ground when Australia, Japan and the United States jointly condemned Russia over the Ukraine crisis, on the back of fresh EU threats to impose new sanctions, possibly as early as next week. The three nations also vowed to bring to justice those responsible for the MH17 atrocity, which left 298 bodies, 38 of them Australian citizens and residents, strewn across the sunflower fields of eastern Ukraine. The depth of political permafrost was evident at several key moments during the G20, notably the traditional G20 family photo when Abbott put as much distance as possible between himself and the Russian leader. It was the equivalent of social Siberia, and just about the only mate Putin found at the summit was South African leader Jacob Zuma. But perhaps the moment that best demonstrated the seething about Russia’s actions came from the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. At a drinks event on the first day, Harper confronted Putin saying: “I guess I’ll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine.” The Russian leader promptly replied: “Well Stephen Harper, Russia would get out of Ukraine if Russia was in Ukraine in the first place.” In perhaps the understatement of the summit, before Putin took off, he said there was a disconnect between Russia’s views and those of the other leaders. “Some of our views do not coincide, but the discussions were complete, constructive and very helpful,” he said. He even thanked Abbott for his generous hospitality. If there’s one thing the Russian president’s good at it’s shaking off the concerns of the international community.

Default utility Image

Humanity’s greed driving climate inaction: Archbishop of Polynesia The Most Reverend Doctor Winston Halapua says that despite Australia’s best efforts to keep climate change off the G20 Summit agenda, it’s become the dominant issue of the forum. He said humanity’s greed is to blame for climate change inaction and the narrow obsession with economic growth is causing immense harm to the planet. “What I mean by that is it’s only a few people who line their pockets,” Archbishop Halapua said. “So when I say humanity, I would say that we are part of a whole species. Yet we human beings dominate the planet Earth as if we are the only living beings around.” He urged Australia and New Zealand to lead with action on climate change as regional leaders within the Pacific. “This issue is not only the Pacific’s. When a major fundamental issue affects this universe and the planet Earth, it is our’s together. And for me, the absence or omission of climate change in the agenda speaks for itself. “…And I raise it because Australia – as far as Pacific Island states are concerned, we are in the Pacific. Climate change affects badly on the Pacific. And I’m saying in my understanding, Australia and New Zealand are also in the Pacific.” He said with rising sea levels, a number of Pacific Islanders are facing the prospect of having to move not only within nations but to other countries entirely. “We are moving towards a kind of violence that we haven’t imagined because with the sea level rising and so many people are going to be displaced. That kind of emotion we can only foresee in the bits and pieces of what’s going now.”

Default utility Image

Federer hangs tough to set up Djokovic showdown After a week of one-sided group stage action at London’s O2 Arena, the season-ender burst to life with world number one Djokovic battling past Japan’s Kei Nishikori after a mid-match meltdown before Federer saved four match points in a near three-hour duel with compatriot Wawrinka. Federer eventually prevailed 4-6 7-5 7-6(6) against the man he will join forces with when Switzerland take on France in next week’s Davis Cup final. Djokovic, bidding for a third consecutive season-ending title having already secured the number one ranking, beat Asian trailblazer Nishikori 6-1 3-6 6-0 after losing his cool with another capacity crowd at the O2 Arena. The real drama was saved to last, however. Federer, sublime in a 6-0 6-1 thrashing of home favourite Andy Murray in his final group match on Thursday, was the big favourite to claim a 15th victory in 17 career clashes with Wawrinka, but he was in for a rollercoaster ride. Australian Open champ Wawrinka seemed determined to tear up the script, which had Federer and Djokovic lined up to contest the final match of the ATP season on Sunday. He outplayed 17-times grand slam champion Federer in the opening set and went toe-to-toe in the second before cracking in the 12th game when a missed smash gave Federer three set points. One was enough. Federer was riled by a line call when he dropped serve in the first game of the decider and the 33-year-old’s mood darkened further when, serving at 4-3, Wawrinka saved one of two break points with a fluky volley off the frame. But Wawrinka will have nightmares about 10th game. Match point arrived but he watched a Federer forehand whistle past him. Another came, and this time Wawrinka netted a feeble volley. Wawrinka’s nerve failed him again on a third match point when he could only spoon a volley, which Federer fizzed back past him before going on to win the game. A tiebreak was needed to settle it and Wawrinka eeked out another match point, but this time his service return went long. With the 17,500 fans, many in Swiss red and wearing Federer masks, making a deafening din, Federer had the coolest head in the cavernous arena, taking the next two points, and the match, with sumptuous drop volleys. “I think I got lucky tonight. Stan played better from the baseline and that usually does the job on this court,” a relieved Federer said. “But I kept fighting. It’s tough but I’m thrilled to be in another final in London.” ‘OVER THE LINE’ He will now do battle with Djokovic for a 37th time, though he has precious little recovery time. That said, Djokovic was complaining of “mental exhaustion” after ending Nishikori’s impressive debut at the Tour Finals. The Serb was rattled by a mid-match onslaught from the Japanese, who came back from a poor start to dominate the second set, only for his challenge to fizzle out in the decider. After dropping only nine games in group stage wins against Marin Cilic, Wawrinka and Tomas Berdych, it looked like plain sailing again for the Serb but a double-fault, loudly cheered by the crowd who wanted a Nishikori fightback, threw Djokovic off track early in the second set. He gestured sarcastically to the fans and admitted his tetchy loss of focus could have cost him dear. “I mean, look, at the end of the day I cannot blame the crowd,” Djokovic told reporters. “The crowd has a right to do what they want, to cheer for whoever they want. Some individuals were going over the line but I lost concentration. “I lost the break because of that. I allowed myself to be in the situation to lose the set, maybe even lose the match.” (Editing by Ed Osmond/Peter Rutherford)

Default utility Image

Foreign leaders to dominate parliament Domestic and foreign policy will continue to collide as parliament returns for special sittings to hear from the Chinese and Indian leaders. Following on from UK prime minister David Cameron’s speech last Friday, Australia’s politicians will hear from Chinese president Xi Jinping on Monday and India’s prime minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday. The foreign leaders are stopping over in Canberra after attending the G20 meeting at the weekend. President Xi will become just the second Chinese leader in history to address Australia’s parliament. He has a busy schedule of meetings with Prime Minister Tony Abbott, federal cabinet, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and the Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove. It’s widely expected he and Mr Abbott will sign a free trade deal, opening up markets between the countries to leap beyond the $150 billion of business done last year. Mr Modi will also meet separately with Mr Abbott and the opposition leader. Senators returning to Canberra for the two speeches will also sit for three days to continue their usual business. The Senate’s draft program lists a wide range of bills for consideration. However, senators are unlikely to get through them all as many are contentious, including changes to pensions and higher education. They’ll also sit in estimates committees on Thursday, replacing hearings postponed when Gough Whitlam died last month. Palmer United Party senator Jacqui Lambie has promised to vote against all government legislation until ministers reconsider a below-inflation wage deal for Defence personnel. After exchanging fiery words with party leader Clive Palmer for much of last week, Senator Lambie has indicated her dance card is filling up for the week ahead with other minor party senators keen to talk. The Senate wrangling will fast bring Mr Abbott back to the realities of domestic politics.

Default utility Image

‘Get out of Ukraine’: Canadian PM ‘shirt-fronts’ Putin at G20 Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has reportedly had a showdown with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Russia’s alleged role in eastern Ukraine. According to CBC News, who quoted Mr Harper’s spokesman Jason MacDonald, the Canadian leader told Mr Putin to “get out of Ukraine”. The comment was made when Mr Putin approached Mr Harper for a handshake at the leaders’ retreat on Saturday morning. “I guess I’ll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: You need to get out of Ukraine,” Mr Harper reportedly told Mr Putin. Mr MacDonald said the Russian leader’s response wasn’t positive. “I guess I’ll shake your hand but I have only one thing to say to you: You need to get out of Ukraine.” Mr Putin’s spokesman confirmed the comments, but told Bloomberg the meeting was “within the bounds of decency.” “Indeed Harper told Putin that Russia should leave Ukraine,” Dmitry Peskov said. “Putin told him that this is impossible because they are not there.” Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott had previously said he was going to “shirt-front” Mr Putin over the downing of MH17, in which 38 Australians died. The showdown comes as Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told Channel Ten this morning that Mr Putin had not been having an easy time at the G20 Summit. “I believe President Putin has been under quite some pressure at the G20 by a number of leaders, including Australia, about the downing of MH17,” Ms Bishop said. “But also their agressive attitude towards Ukraine, the obvious breach of territorial sovereignty and the fact that Russia refuses to acknowledge the role and the influence it has over the conflict in Ukraine. “We are deeply concerned about Russia’s very agressive behaviour towards Ukraine and what that means for eastern Europe and that’s why a number of leaders here at the G20, including Prime Minister Cameron, Prime Minister Harper of Canada, have all taken issue with President Putin about their behaviour.” “We should be encouraging Russia to be a responsible international citizen. If it wants to be taken seriously and if it wants to maintain its status as a significant economy, a significant nation, then it has to abide by international norms.”

Categories

Recent Posts

Default utility Image Public warned against revenge after arson charge

As he was driven away from Morwell Magistrates Court on Friday, angry residents hurled abuse...

Default utility Image Stimulus plans under scrutiny at G7 talks

Top economic powers urged action to help the world scramble out of a deepening recession,...

Default utility Image G7 sets sights on urgent economic reform

Italy\'s Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti called for a "new world economic order"...

Default utility Image Suspected US missile strike kills 27 in Pakistan

The strike, among the deadliest yet, defied Pakistani government warnings that the tactic is...

Default utility Image Vidmar apologises for extraordinary outburst

Vidmar, named the league\'s coach of the year only a week ago, labelled Adelaide...

Recent Posts

Default utility Image Default utility Image Default utility Image Default utility Image Default utility Image

Recent Posts

Default utility Image Public warned against revenge after arson charge

As he was driven away from Morwell Magistrates Court on Friday, angry residents hurled abuse...

Default utility Image Stimulus plans under scrutiny at G7 talks

Top economic powers urged action to help the world scramble out of a deepening recession,...

Default utility Image G7 sets sights on urgent economic reform

Italy\'s Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti called for a "new world economic order"...

Default utility Image Suspected US missile strike kills 27 in Pakistan

The strike, among the deadliest yet, defied Pakistani government warnings that the tactic is...

Default utility Image Vidmar apologises for extraordinary outburst

Vidmar, named the league\'s coach of the year only a week ago, labelled Adelaide...

Tag Cloud