The Trump-Kim Bromance
It may be that we have all misinterpreted the somewhat surprising “bromance” between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. It has been all too easy to assume that it is Kim who is cosying up to Trump rather than the other way round, that t is Kim who sees himself as a supplicant and as an acolyte of the American president, and who seeks to gain some reflected glory from his association with Trump.
But recent events suggest that this is a misinterpretation of the relationship – that it is Trump who is star-struck and who seeks to learn from, and to inflate his image through, his links to his apparently junior partner.
The evidence for this is Trump’s obvious keenness to emulate his North Korean counterpart in so may respects. Trump’s unprecedented Independence Day military parade, for example – jets overhead and tanks rolling down the streets – seemed more typical of Pyongyang than of Washington and to have been lifted straight from the North Korean dictator’s playbook.
But this surprising departure from American practice is not the only evidence of Trump’s admiration of the North Korean way of doing things.
It seems clear that Trump is impressed not just by Kim himself but by the whole Kim dynasty. He seems to cast an envious and admiring eye on the Kim family’s ability to perpetuate its rule from one generation to the next. This, surely, is what lies behind Trump’s stated wish to remain President for an unending future, his warning that he might refuse to accept an election defeat, and his attempts to insinuate his daughter Ivanka, and other family members, into the higher reaches of world leadership.
A Trump dynasty is clearly in his sights.
The Kim regime seems to offer the American president, in addition to the glorification of military power, other useful precedents as well. Kim, Trump will have noted, does not need to worry about criticism from the media; so Trump has made persistent efforts to undermine the whole concept of a free press. He is very selective about the media outlets he is prepared to deal with and has put an end to the daily press briefings that traditionally – and essentially in a democracy -have provided the media with the opportunity to hold the executive to account.
Dictators – from Hitler onwards – have relied greatly on propaganda to sustain them in power; the “big lie” was, after all, a technique refined by the Nazi regime. Trump has learnt from Kim that people will usually believe what they are told by those in authority, and he has proved that denying the truth, using techniques such as the “photoshopping” of pictorial evidence, will allow him to provide “alternative facts” to convince his supporters.
And Trump has registered that Kim operates under no constraints imposed by the law or by the courts; Kim simply assumes that he is above the law – the classic stance of the dictator. Trump has followed suit; he has also adopted a policy of refusing to comply with the law – and that includes the provisions of the constitution – and of providing himself with an insurance policy by stacking the court benches with his political appointments.
The evidence is overwhelming, in other words, that Trump is a would-be (albeit trainee) dictator, and that he is Kim’s pupil in such matters. He does not seem to possess enough self-knowledge to realise that adopting such a subservient relationship to the Korean dictator is far from “making America great again” but has reduced the supposed “leader of the free world” to the status of a client state.
Sadly, Trump’s admiration for, and subservience to the model provided by, Kim is all of a piece with his regard for other undemocratic regimes – his approval of and close relationship with President Putin of Russia, President Duterte of the Philippines and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia being obvious and recent examples.
Friends of the United States can only hope that the American people will recognise the danger they are in, and will in due course re-assert the democratic values that have underpinned the Republic for most of its existence.
Bryan Gould
7July 2019
Off The Fence – In The Right Direction
Jeremy Corbyn, we are told, is being advised – not least by his deputy (as well as by some of his would-be successors) – that he must come “off the fence” on the Brexit issue if he wants to bolster Labour’s chances in a general election.
Those offering this advice clearly have in mind that he should declare himself and the Labour party as supporting the Remain option – positioning themselves, in other words, amongst those who would defy the decision taken by the British people in a democratic vote on this centrally important issue.
How sensible and well-founded is this advice? The first point to make is that such a step would represent for Corbyn, even if the advice were both well-intentioned and well-founded, a reversal of his own personal convictions and, as such, would signal his willingness to put electoral considerations above principle – hardly an approach that would commend itself to large numbers of his own supporters and voters who rightly expect more from someone who presents himself as a conviction politician.
That in itself would lead him, one hopes, to reject such advice. But, of equal significance, it is highly doubtful that the recommended course of action would produce the electoral benefits claimed for it.
Jeremy Corbyn, more than any of those tendering such advice, understands very well why so many Labour voters voted Leave. They had had enough of being ignored, of no one listening to their catalogue of complaints about EU membership, of their day-by-day experience of lost jobs and pressure on their housing, on health and other public services, of their sense of having ceded the power of self-government to a foreign entity.
He understands how mistaken is the vision peddled by Remainers of the EU as a socialist nirvana, how incompatible is this idealised version of the EU with the reality of one dominated by unelected bankers and bureaucrats, and committed to serving the interests of multinational corporations and neo-liberal doctrines.
He knows that this perception on the part of so many voters (and especially so many potential and actual Labour voters) that the EU serves the interests of the few could only be magnified by any proposal that the referendum result should be over-ridden.
Yes, there is an argument from the viewpoint of seeking electoral advantage for coming off the fence – but the direction of the dismounting should surely be towards a greater and more clear-cut commitment to giving effect to the Leave vote.
It is surely the case that Labour’s (and Corbyn’s) ambivalence on the issue has handed huge gains to Labour’s competitors from all parts of the Brexit spectrum. Labour voters – both actual and potential – who value democracy and self-government and who agree with or at least respect the referendum decision have been tempted by the certainty of the Brexit party’s position, while those of the Remain persuasion, who would like to see Labour taking a more pro-EU stance have not been convinced by Corbyn’s shilly-shallying but have transferred their allegiance to the Liberals and Greens.
The net result of Corbyn’s stance so far is to have re-shaped the political landscape – and against Labour’s interests. It has handed the Tories the opportunity to replace an unpopular and ineffectual leader with someone of much greater popular appeal and to provide him with a ready-made campaigning issue – support for democracy and standing up for Britain’s interests – which will be hard to counter in a forthcoming general election campaign.
Jeremy Corbyn should, in other words, ignore the siren voices which offer a mistaken vision of electoral success if only he would reverse direction by committing Labour to the Remain cause and proclaiming that the referendum majority got it wrong.
Such a course of action could only compound Labour’s problems. The best course would be to stay true to Labour’s basic values of democracy and self-government, and to give priority to the many not the few.
Bryan Gould
4 July 2019
How Much Foreign Control Is Acceptable?
To express concern about foreign ownership and control in New Zealand is often to invite accusations of xenophobia and economic illiteracy. It is worthwhile, therefore, to rehearse the grounds for that concern, and to explore the various forms it can take.
The most obvious manifestation of foreign influence is when New Zealand assets pass into foreign hands. The downsides of that change of ownership are largely to do with the loss of economic benefit.
If a significant part of the New Zealand economy is bought by overseas interests, the economic benefits produced by that asset – the income stream, the capital appreciation, the technological know-how, and so on – flow offshore rather than remain in New Zealand.
The consequence of such developments and of the repatriation of profits to foreign owners across the exchanges is that we are a smaller and less wealthy economy than we would otherwise be, and have greater difficulty in balancing our overseas payments – which acts in turn as an inhibitor to future growth.
We might include, in this catalogue of disadvantage, assets which have other than a purely monetary value. Foreign companies that bottle our water for export to profitable markets overseas, for example, are using an asset to which we do not attach a market price, but we should not kid ourselves that we are losing nothing of value; in a world when clean water is increasingly scarce, to allow its consumption by overseas profit-seekers is short-sighted in the extreme.
The fact that our major commercial banks are owned by Australian interests and that the multi-billion profits they derive from their New Zealand operations are repatriated each year across the Tasman represents a further loss of national wealth and a further burden on our balance of payments.
Nor is that the only price we pay. Given the important role played by banks in our overall economic development, their Australian parentage means that essential elements in the economic management of our own economy are in some senses beyond our control, since the significant decisions taken by our banks will reflect Australian interests rather our own.
So, our own government – however much it may want to see that decisions taken by the banks on interest rates, mortgage policies, and monetary policy more generally, reflect New Zealand priorities – has to deal with important agencies whose primary loyalty is to their Australian owners.
There are other examples of foreign entities, by virtue of their significant involvement in our economy, being able to influence domestic policy to suit their own interests. We need only recall the demand made by Warner Brothers some years back that the influence of trade unions in the film industry should be reduced, and the shameful readiness of the then National government to accede to that demand by changing our labour laws so that film industry workers became self-employed contractors rather than employees, to understand how vulnerable we can be to powerful overseas interests.
We can amplify this analysis by looking at a further instance of potential damage if we allow foreign interests to become too powerful. No one doubts that one of the most formidable obstacles to effective protection of our vulnerable environment is the primacy we accord to profit-seeking enterprises and commercial interests more generally.
How much more significant does this consideration become if the commercial interests involved are foreign, rather than New Zealand-owned? How much more likely is it that environmental downsides will be discounted if the oil company seeking permits to drill in our coastal waters is answerable only to foreign shareholders rather than to the New Zealand public?
And will foreign enterprises display the cultural sensitivity and awareness that are required and appropriate in today’s Aotearoa/New Zealand? Will they understand the value we place on the bicultural and multi-cultural dimensions of life in our country or on the social and workplace advances we have made, often ahead of the rest of the world?
A truly sovereign country will legitimately want to limit the influence of those who are based overseas but seek to play a significant role in our national life – a role that might have deleterious consequences not just for our economy as measured in dollar terms but also for our national identity, our social cohesion and our environment.
Bryan Gould
19 June 2019
Luxon’s Hubris
Few tears will be shed in the regions at the departure of Christopher Luxon as CEO of Air New Zealand. Under his watch, the supposedly “national” airline lost sight of its national responsibilities and abandoned regional centres such as Whakatane to a future without connecting flights to the Air New Zealand network.
Eyebrows have also been raised at the reasons given by Luxon for his decision to give up his Air New Zealand post. He has let it be known that he has in mind a political career – and not just any old political career but one that takes him into the National party (of which he is not currently even a member) and ultimately to the leadership of that party and thence to the post of Prime Minister.
An enthusiastic supporter has even published an advertisement, showing a face identified as that of John Key transmogrifying into that of Luxon – the Electoral Commission is investigating whether its cost should be counted as an electoral expense.
Most people seeking to pursue a political career do not announce their intentions in advance, but take the precaution of first joining the party of their choice as an individual member, then of attending local branch meetings, then of being nominated to the list of potential candidates and then of presenting themselves to a constituency party in the hope of being selected as a parliamentary candidate at the next election.
To attempt to short-cut that process and simply to announce that he intends to become leader of the National party before he has even joined it speaks not only to a lack of judgment and self-awareness but also to a considerable degree of arrogance.
Nor can we give him good marks for his political knowledge. The notion that someone who has run a large corporation is for that reason well fitted to run the country is a fantasy perpetuated only by those who are still mired in neo-liberal delusion. Running a company (with – usually – the single bottom line of turning a profit) is merest child’s play compared with the myriad responsibilities and goals – not only economic but social, environmental and international as well – required of those who want to run the country.
As the example offered by Donald Trump shows, it is almost impossible for someone accustomed to simply telling employees what to do to adjust to a context in which everyone is entitled to a view and where people have to be persuaded rather than browbeaten.
But the real reason to react with scepticism to Luxon’s self-promotion is that the record shows that business leaders often fail to translate their business success into political achievement – and on that subject I have some personal experience.
As a British MP in the 1980s, I had the opportunity of viewing at close quarters the fortunes of another businessman turned politician. Sir John Davies was a very nice man who exhibited none of Christopher Luxon’s unfortunate hubris. He had been a successful businessman and had even become Director of the Confederation of British Industry before succumbing to the temptation to try his luck at politics. He got himself elected to the Home of Commons and was appointed to join Edward Heath’s cabinet as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The poor man found his appearances in the House to be a nightmare. He simply could not adjust to a scenario in which everything he said was subject to immediate challenge, scorn and ridicule. My own direct experience of him came at a later stage in his political career when he chaired the Scrutiny Committee of which I happened to be a member.
The function of that Committee was to keep tabs on how far European legislation impinged on British law. On that subject, his and my views diverged somewhat (he was a euro-fanatic) but we managed to rub along together quite nicely and I was pleased to see that he found the Committee a more congenial environment than the House itself.
But his example ( as well as countless similar others) should be a warning to Luxon and the National party. Luxon-style hubris is so often followed by nemesis. Simon Bridges can sleep easily in this instance at least.
Bryan Gould
25 June 2019
Luxon’s Hubris
Few tears will be shed in the regions at the departure of Christopher Luxon as CEO of Air New Zealand. Under his watch, the supposedly “national” airline lost sight of its national responsibilities and abandoned regional centres such as Whakatane to a future without connecting flights to the Air New Zealand network.
Eyebrows have also been raised at the reasons given by Luxon for his decision to give up his Air New Zealand post. He has let it be known that he has in mind a political career – and not just any old political career but one that takes him into the National party (of which he is not currently even a member) and ultimately to the leadership of that party and thence to the post of Prime Minister.
An enthusiastic supporter has even published an advertisement, showing a face identified as that of John Key transmogrifying into that of Luxon – the Electoral Commission is investigating whether its cost should be counted as an electoral expense.
Most people seeking to pursue a political career do not announce their intentions in advance, but take the precaution of first joining the party of their choice as an individual member, then of attending local branch meetings, then of being nominated to the list of potential candidates and then of presenting themselves to a constituency party in the hope of being selected as a parliamentary candidate at the next election.
To attempt to short-cut that process and simply to announce that he intends to become leader of the National party before he has even joined it speaks not only to a lack of judgment and self-awareness but also to a considerable degree of arrogance.
Nor can we give him good marks for his political knowledge. The notion that someone who has run a large corporation is for that reason well fitted to run the country is a fantasy perpetuated only by those who are still mired in neo-liberal delusion. Running a company (with – usually – the single bottom line of turning a profit) is merest child’s play compared with the myriad responsibilities and goals – not only economic but social, environmental and international as well – required of those who want to run the country.
As the example offered by Donald Trump shows, it is almost impossible for someone accustomed to simply telling employees what to do to adjust to a context in which everyone is entitled to a view and where people have to be persuaded rather than browbeaten.
But the real reason to react with scepticism to Luxon’s self-promotion is that the record shows that business leaders often fail to translate their business success into political achievement – and on that subject I have some personal experience.
As a British MP in the 1980s, I had the opportunity of viewing at close quarters the fortunes of another businessman turned politician. Sir John Davies was a very nice man who exhibited none of Christopher Luxon’s unfortunate hubris. He had been a successful businessman and had even become Director of the Confederation of British Industry before succumbing to the temptation to try his luck at politics. He got himself elected to the Home of Commons and was appointed to join Edward Heath’s cabinet as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The poor man found his appearances in the House to be a nightmare. He simply could not adjust to a scenario in which everything he said was subject to immediate challenge, scorn and ridicule. My own direct experience of him came at a later stage in his political career when he chaired the Scrutiny Committee of which I happened to be a member.
The function of that Committee was to keep tabs on how far European legislation impinged on British law. On that subject, his and my views diverged somewhat (he was a euro-fanatic) but we managed to rub along together quite nicely and I was pleased to see that he found the Committee a more congenial environment than the House itself.
But his example ( as well as countless similar others) should be a warning to Luxon and the National party. Luxon-style hubris is so often followed by nemesis. Simon Bridges can sleep easily in this instance at least.
Bryan Gould
25 June 2019