Australian television and radio current affairs programs have been testing panels of citizens from all backgrounds to see if they can name the first prime minister, say how many states there are, describe Australia's unique preferential voting process, or tell why the kangaroo and emu were chosen for the national coat of arms.
Everyone has been failing miserably. The answers: Edmund Barton was the first prime minister; there are six states; the voting system defies simple English -- thus the correct answer is "I don't know" and the kangaroo and emu were chosen because they cannot take a step backwards.
The tests are the funny, or sad, side of a more serious debate about how immigrants -- and especially Muslims -- should be integrated into Australian society.
Prime Minister John Howard kicked the debate off by calling for more stringent citizenship tests for immigrants and for granting visas.
He has released a discussion paper proposing that immigrants wait four years, not two, to be eligible for citizenship, that they pass an English language test and that they affirm an oath to "Australian values."
But then the opposition leader Kim Beazley embarked on what political commentators called "a bidding war to be tough on Muslims" by calling for all international passengers to sign a pledge to adhere to Australian values on arrival.
It was a blunder from which he is still trying to extricate himself, as the tourism industry raised the specter of 5 million holiday makers a year, led by New Zealanders, the British, Germans, people from the US, Singaporeans and Samoans being confronted with -- and perhaps being paralyzed with mirth -- by a values pledge at passport control.
Beazley has refused to speculate on what other countries might require if, for example, Australians had to pledge to uphold Indonesian values before hitting a beach in Bali, or Turkish values before making the pilgrimage to Gallipoli, a famous World War I battleground that defined the ANZAC spirit of friendship, courage and sacrifice.
Or, as various wits asked: "What if we made the Poms sign up for drinking beer cold and they retaliated by making Aussies sign up for warm beer tasting like furniture cleaner as part of British values?"
The debate is at times uglier than it is amusing. The Howard government is at pains to claim that it is not about Muslims, but the Muslim community isn't buying the official line for a second, even though it doesn't speak with one clear voice any more than the Jewish, Greek Orthodox, Protestant or Catholic communities.
The prime minister preceded his Australian values announcement by a speech two weeks ago, in which he criticized "some" Muslims for being slow to learn English, accept Australian ways and recognize equal rights for women.
This week, his parliamentary secretary for immigration and multicultural affairs, Andrew Robb, said Islamic clerics should preach in English. The question as to whether the Australian government would require Jewish clerics to cease preaching in Hebrew -- or various Orthodox priests to desist from preaching in Greek or Armenian -- was left unanswered, as was any detailed definition of Australian values, outside of John Howard saying they included "a fair go."
But asked if an immigrant who had paid taxes, worked hard and "done good" in the Aussie idiom would be thrown out of the country on failing an English language test, Howard said: "If you fail to pass a visa requirement, that's generally the rule."
As Waleed Aly, a Melbourne lawyer and member of the Islamic Council of Victoria said: "Thus comes the endless soap opera of Australia's culture wars.With just a few quiet sentences, Howard can generate a spectacular flurry, a circus of stupidity."
There is of course, a serious issue at stake, which is how to celebrate and recognize multicultural diversity while improving social cohesion.
It has led to the Netherlands proposing to show intended Muslim immigrants a short film of gay men kissing and women exposing their bodies to general view as preparation for the challenges of Dutch society.
In France, it led to bans on religious head scarves in the schools and an intense discussion in the UK about the prevention of the alienation of young British-born Muslim youths who might become radicalized by terrorist cells like those that attacked the London subway train network more than a year ago.
Howard has been thinking about staking out the politically potent ground of Australian values for some time.
In his Australia Day speech in January he said: "Australia's ethnic diversity is one of the enduring strengths of our nation. Yet our celebration of diversity must not be at the expense of the common values that bind us together as one people."
This is regarded by his political allies and foes alike as showing that Howard knows that as the economy goes pear-shaped (another much-loved Aussie idiom), a call to patriotism at the expense of visible minorities is a way divert voters from worrying about rising interest rates and job insecurity to rallying around the flag, which he has wrapped firmly around his prime ministership.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing