EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

All spin for NBN champions

PROPER analysis would inspire confidence in broadband plan.

Just as it is in comedy, timing is sometimes very important in politics. So it is quite unfortunate for the Gillard government that revelations of its plan to recruit some high-profile "NBN champions" have coincided with sneak previews from former finance minister Lindsay Tanner's book lamenting such stunts. Mr Tanner specifically mentions a business advisory group launched by then prime minister Kevin Rudd, which generated the desired publicity but, in reality, achieved nothing. He cites this as an example of the dumbing-down of politics, where government spin triumphs over substance.

And so today we hear of the "NBN champions" -- a group of prominent people selected by the government to spruik the nation's largest-ever infrastructure project. The NBN will require at least $36 billion of public funding yet was initiated without a proper cost-benefit analysis. Such a study would have ensured that taxpayers received value for money. It would have been a demonstration that the government was committed to substance. This, in turn, would have gone a long way to ensuring public confidence in the project even, perhaps, while it endured the current implementation problems.

We don't know if the "NBN champions" concept was subject to a cost-benefit analysis but we guess not. It's just an attempt to generate good publicity for a project that is fast becoming a political liability. The best way to champion the NBN would have been to do the due diligence in the first place. Instead, we get another example of a government addicted to spin.

Libya impasse emboldens Syria

US and Western resolve is being tested in the Middle East.

Amid the barbaric bloodletting in Syria, claims of direct al-Qa'ida involvement in Yemen and assessments by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs, that the Libyan conflict is stalemated, it is no wonder influential US senators are demanding more decisive action, including targeting Muammar Gaddafi.

Whether US President Barack Obama likes it or not, dealing effectively with Libya is a touchstone of Western resolve in handling the continuing tumult across the Arab world. The likes of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad are encouraged in their brutal repression by the reality that despite the efforts of the US and the six of its 27 Nato allies who have rallied to the cause, Gaddafi remains in power in Tripoli.

Even UN sanctions appear ineffectual, with new reports claiming Gaddafi has repatriated billions of dollars to Tripoli to be used as a war chest, replicating what Saddam Hussein did before the invasion of Iraq. In the battle with the rebels, there is, as Admiral Mullen says, stalemate, with Gaddafi forces ousted from places like Misratah one day only to resume their bombardment the next.

The influential Republican senator Lindsey Graham argues that the way to end this stalemate is to cut off the head of the snake. He is supported by senator John McCain, who has been at rebel headquarters in Benghazi and argues for the provision of money and weaponry on a scale similar to that given the mujahideen who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Mr Obama has, from the outset, been extremely cautious. After Iraq and Afghanistan, this is understandable. He has ruled out American boots on the ground and is confined by the UN Security Council resolution. But, as Senator McCain has said, even within those parameters there is more the US could do beyond the modest two unmanned predator drones that have now been committed. The White House should rethink its withdrawal of the C-130 gunships and A-10 attack aircraft that proved so effective at the start of the campaign.

The stakes across the Middle East could not be higher. The despicable regime in Damascus, Iran's closest ally and patron of Hezbollah and Hamas, is following Gaddafi's example in killing its opponents indiscriminately while the UN does nothing. Yemen's embattled President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a long-standing Western ally against terrorism, has warned that al-Qa'ida is playing a key role in the uprising against him. Senator McCain has said the ongoing stalemate in Libya would play into al-Qa'ida's hands. Even in Egypt, there is cause for concern. Mohammed Badie, the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader, has predicted it will win 75 per cent of the seats in the forthcoming election, and Gamaa al-Islamiya, an al-Qa'ida affiliate, is fast emerging. The US and its European allies need to show greater leadership and decisiveness. Libya was always going to be a critical test of the West's commitment in dealing with the uprisings across the Arab world. Mr Obama should not shrink from it. Despots everywhere need to know he and the West mean business.

Gillard in China needs to manage the symbiosis

THE Prime Minister's Beijing visit will test diplomatic skills.

Commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Korean War battle of Kapyong, where Australian soldiers fought valiantly against Chinese aggressors, provided a sobering prelude to Julia Gillard's visit to Beijing today. While trade and shared economic interests will be the preferred focus of both countries, security and human rights issues will always provide tension and present pitfalls. The test for the Prime Minister's diplomatic skills is to get the balance right in her private meetings, including with Premier Wen Jiabao, and in her public statements.

The Lowy Institute's public opinion survey underscores the challenge, showing the Australian people have a realistic but wary attitude towards China. Three-quarters of us believe China's economic growth is good for Australia but 44 per cent see China emerging as a military threat in coming decades. Perhaps most problematic for Ms Gillard is the view of more than half the population that Australia allows too much investment from the Asian giant. 

The recent rejection of the proposed Singaporean merger with the Australian Stock Exchange, coming after the collapse of the Chinalco/Rio Tinto deal two years ago, has raised suspicions in Beijing about our openness. Ms Gillard will need to strongly assert Australia's welcoming attitude to Chinese investment, while clearly reserving our right to reject proposals, on a case-by-case basis, if we judge they compromise our national interest. She needs to do this without defining any strict criteria for the national interest test or suggesting it will be invoked eagerly or often. This nuance will require deft diplomacy.

While the Prime Minister might be grateful to be away from domestic political travails, the Chinese might well raise two issues that are troubling her at home. The mining and carbon taxes will exercise China if they are seen to either increase the prices of our resource exports or diminish potential investment in additional capacity. There is an unavoidable paradox here that Ms Gillard will want to step around: she will be assuring China our efforts to put a price on our own pollution will not impede China's energy expansion and, therefore, emissions growth. China's carbon emissions are already 20 times greater than Australia's and they will double by 2025, so the Prime Minister will be grateful for any noises Beijing makes about improving its energy efficiency and reducing the scale of its emissions growth.

On security matters, the Chinese will not have missed the defence focus of Ms Gillard's Japan and South Korea visits, and she must follow this up by registering a firm approach regarding China's maritime posturing and its inability to rein in the recalcitrant North Korean regime. Similarly, the Prime Minister will not want to take a backward step on human rights, although these are adequately addressed in detail through the annual human rights dialogue.

At the core of the Australia-China relationship is a symbiosis of economic interests and a political uneasiness created by our differing democratic values. On the whole, these tensions have been managed adroitly for the past three decades. Stability will be the foundation of increased freedom in China and growing prosperity for both nations.