Academic literature on the topic 'Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs'

The Greek Committee, a body organised and run by Sir Charles Dilke, was publicly launched in May 1879 and functioned as a pressure group to advance Greek territorial claims during the various phases of the question concerning the rectification of the Greek frontier (1879-1881). The timing of the committee’s establishment, its membership and appeal to the British public, and the changes brought about in its operations by the change of government in 1880 form a case study of the interweaving of British party politics with philhellenism. In the late 1870s, British philhellenism, that is, interest in the affairs of modern Greece and the advocacy of the “Greek cause”, should be viewed within the framework of liberal and radical concerns for the formation of a “true English policy” in foreign affairs, based on the long-standing British interest in continental nationalities.

There is little agreement about the degree to which parliamentary institutions can help overcome the democratic deficit in global governance. While much of the literature on the European Union's democratic deficit focuses on reforming parliament, most commentary on the subject in global governance and foreign policy holds out little hope that national parliaments could be used to mitigate the effects of the internationalization of public policy. This article examines the case of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT), established by the Australian government in 1996 in an explicit attempt to use parliamentary reform to address the democratic deficit. Although JSCOT was highly active, it did not significantly change the way in which Australian national positions in international negotiations were arrived at; the democratic deficit created in Australia by increasing internationalization has not been mitigated by the creation of this committee. While the JSCOT initiatives might have been motivated by the concerns of the government of John Howard to overcome the democratic deficit, the way in which JSCOT actually evolved departed considerably from those original intentions. Ironically, JSCOT evolved in ways not dissimilar to the evolution of NGO consultation in Canada in the 1990s: as a tool of political management, a means by which the government could channel protest, deflect opposition, and in essence legitimize its own policy preferences.

In recent years, the use of foreign loanwords in Chinese has increased significantly. It has been estimated that there are currently about 3,000 foreign words in Chinese, most of which are related to English (Zhang, 2006). Of these, more than 500 words are frequently used, together with their abbreviations and translations. In response to this situation, the Chinese government established the Inter-ministerial Joint Meeting on Chinese Language Translation and Writing Specifications (IJM-CLTWS) in 2012, consisting of ten state-level ministries and institutions such as the State Language Commission, the Central Compilation & Translation Bureau, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Education. Thus far, the expert committee of the IJM-CLTWS has identified four groups of foreign words and their standard Chinese translations.

Chinese Vice-President Hu Jintao, Jiang Zemin's heir apparent, has risen to the elite levels of Chinese politics through skill and a diverse network of political patrons. Hu's political career spans four decades, and he has been associated with China's top leaders, including Song Ping, Hu Yaobang, Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin. Though marked early as a liberal by his ties to Hu Yaobang, Hu Jintao's conservative credentials were fashioned during the imposition of martial law in Tibet in 1989. Those actions endeared him to the Beijing leadership following the 4 June Tiananmen Square crackdown, and his career accelerated in the 1990s. Young, cautious and talented, Hu catapulted to the Politburo Standing Committee, the vice-presidency and the Central Military Commission. Despite recent media attention, Hu's positions on economic and foreign policy issues remain poorly defined. As the 16th Party Congress approaches, Hu is likely to be preparing to become General Secretary of the Communist Party and a force in world affairs.

The political rights of Indonesian citizens living abroad have been guaranteed by law since 1953 and implemented by a joint committee between the General Election Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a developing country with increasing democracy, Indonesia’s external voting needs to be studied. Using the qualitative analysis of macro data and questionnaire survey in Tokyo, this study addresses the following questions: How is the implementation of external voting by the Indonesian government? How is the voter? How does the registration, administration, voting facilitation, and voting method influence voter participation in home country elections? The findings suggest that the government provides many resources to facilitate external voting. Nevertheless, survey results revealed that some facilitation was inadequate compare to the number of voters. Although highly educated citizens tend to have a high awareness of home country elections, problems in voting facilitation might prevent them from voting.

In 1918 Harold Nicolson in discussing the problem of political intelligence observed that ‘any forecast of diplomatic development must inevitably deal, not with concentric forces, but with eccentric tendencies; such data as are available emerge only from a mass of heterogeneous phenomena, mutually conflicting, mutually overlapping, and striving each towards some distinct and often incompatible solution’. At the time Nicolson was writing the Foreign Office was embarking upon an early attempt to assist diplomacy through analysing these eccentric tendencies and coordinating the information emanating from the heterogeneous phenomena of foreign affairs. The vehicle for this experiment was the Political Intelligence Department (P.I.D.), and its experience contains elements common to intelligence activity throughout this century: the need for co-ordination which in turn leads to a struggle for control of the co-ordinating body, the suspicion aroused in traditional departments by any group involved in intelligence work, the pressure of the Treasury to cut costs even at the expense of useful intelligence operations, and the struggle between the prime minister's office and the Foreign Office for the control of policy. Since the turn of the century there had been a growing awareness of the need for foreign intelligence, a development which finally resulted in the creation of an espionage service in 1909 (the ancestor of the Secret Intelligence Service). This department, however, concentrated on military related intelligence. During the First World War it became evident, particularly to Lord Hardinge, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, that while there were numerous sources of political intelligence, no systematic method had been established for collecting and collating this information, verifying it against collateral sources, and synthesizing the result in succinct reports which would be of value to the policy-makers. Military intelligence was clearly the preserve of the Admiralty and the War Office, and the Foreign Office decided to establish that political intelligence fell within its purview. In the process of establishing Foreign Office primacy in this sphere, Hardinge had to fend off attempts by Lord Beaverbrook who as Minister of Information tried to use his personal political clout to control such intelligence. This was, however, only one of several bureaucratic difficulties, the P.I.D. was forced to struggle with. Finally in 1920 the P.I.D. was closed through a combination of financial and bureaucratic pressures. During its brief existence, though, it was able to prove the utility of a centralized body concerned with political intelligence. In some ways it presaged the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (J.I.C.), which in a more sophisticated and elaborate way is meant, to achieve the same ends.

ABSTRACTThe roots of a British Antarctic policy can be traced, paradoxically, back to the establishment of a meteorological station by the Scottish Antarctic Expedition in the South Orkneys, in 1903, and the indifference of the British Government to its almost immediate transfer to the Argentine Government. It was from that modest physical presence upon Laurie Island that Argentina came increasingly to challenge British claims to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands Dependencies (FID), first in the late 1920s and then more extensively in the second world war. This challenge shaped British policy for the next forty years, with further complications caused by overlapping territorial claims made by Chile and the possible territorial ambitions of the USA. Britain's eventual response, at the height of World War II, was to establish permanent occupation of Antarctica from the southern summer of 1943–1944. This occupation was given the military codename Operation Tabarin. However, it was never a military operation as such, although monitoring the activities of enemy surface raiders and submarines provided a convenient cover story, as did scientific research once the operation became public. Whilst successive parties, rich in professional scientists, considerably expanded the pre-war survey and research of the Discovery Investigations Committee, their physical occupancy of the Antarctic islands and Peninsula was essentially a political statement, whereby the Admiralty and Colonial Office (CO) strove to protect British territorial rights, whilst the Foreign Office (FO) endeavoured to minimise disruption to Britain's long-standing economic and cultural ties with Argentina, and most critically, the shipment of war-time meat supplies. In meeting that immediate need, Tabarin also provided the basis from which Britain's subsequent post-war leadership in Antarctic affairs developed.

John Hartwell is Head of the Resources Division in the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Canberra Australia. The Resources Division provides advice to the Australian Government on policy issues, legislative changes and administrative matters related to the petroleum industry, upstream and downstream and the coal and minerals industries. In addition to his divisional responsibilities, he is the Australian Commissioner for the Australia/East Timor Joint Petroleum Development Area and Chairman of the National Oil and Gas Safety Advisory Committee. He also chairs two of the taskforces, Clean Fossil Energy and Aluminium, under the Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate (AP6). He serves on two industry and government leadership groups delivering reports to the Australian Government, strategies for the oil and gas industry and framework for the uranium industry. More recently he led a team charged with responsibility for taking forward the Australian Government’s proposal to establish a global carbon capture and storage institute. He is involved in the implementation of a range of resource related initiatives under the Government’s Industry Action Agenda process, including mining and technology services, minerals exploration and light metals. Previously he served as Deputy Chairman of the Snowy Mountains Council and the Commonwealth representative to the Natural Gas Pipelines Advisory Committee. He has occupied a wide range of positions in the Australian Government dealing with trade, commodity, and energy and resource issues. He has worked in Treasury, the Department of Trade, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy before the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. From 1992–96 he was a Minister Counsellor in the Australian Embassy, Washington, with responsibility for agriculture and resource issues and also served in the Australian High Commission, London (1981–84) as the Counsellor/senior trade relations officer. He holds a MComm in economics, and Honours in economics from the University of New South Wales, Australia. Prior to joining the Australian Government, worked as a bank economist. He was awarded a public service medal in 2005 for his work on resources issues for the Australian Government.

“Research, no matter how ‘good’, is incomplete, until it has been published.”1 In my opinion, otolaryngology residents, fellows and consultants do not lack in research or scholarly capability. However, “the proof of the pudding is (indeed) in the eating,” and scholarly societies are recognized not so much for what goes on within their hallowed halls, but for what are made public outside those walls. Indeed, “publishing” means to make something public.2 And though we may not lack in research, we certainly still lag in publication. I would therefore not be amiss in address the need for PSOHNS fellows, diplomates and trainees to publish, in electronic or hard-copy, in print or other media, including the social media. Because of my background, much of my reflections will deal with writing—but by no means do I mean to limit publication to that of the written word. Why write and publish? “Start Where You Are: Taking Your Place in the History of Scholarship”2 “Similar to others who write (historians and poets), scientists and those involved in research need to write … to leave behind a documented legacy of their accomplishments.”1 Whatever we discover or unearth in the laboratory, clinic or in the field; whether from samples, specimens, subjects, patients or participants; utilizing theoretical or applied instruments, materials and methods; simply “did not happen” unless it is documented and disseminated. In Filipino,“kung hindi nakasulat, hindi nangyari.” How often do we hear comments like “naisip ko na iyan,” or “na-presenta ko na iyan” or even “sinulat ko na iyan” at a scientific meeting where a speaker presents a study. The sad fact of the matter is that many of these colleagues may indeed have had similar thoughts, or delivered previous oral presentations, or even written reports. But because none of these had been properly published, they remain inaccessible to subsequent scholars, and are therefore neither cited nor acknowledged. “While ‘doing’ the research is important, ‘writing’ about why and how it was done, what was found, and what it means is far more important as it serves as a permanent record of scientific work that has been completed and accepted by peers.”1 And writing and publishing are an entirely different ball game from researching alone. Publication, or “making ideas public,” allows “scholars (to) provide each other with the opportunity to build on each other’s contributions, create dialogue (sometimes heated) with one another and join the documented and ongoing history of their field.”2 It is by participating in this “documented and ongoing history” of whatever field we may be in, that we and our specialty society gain international recognition and become internationally competitive. Taking your place in the history of scholarship starts where you are, as an author. Publication involves communication between the author and his or her audience via the written article.3 Unlike public speakers or performing artists, the author’s interaction with the audience is limited by the written and published work. Hence, “a successful researcher is usually a good communicator who has the ability to maximize the transmission of research findings to his or her chosen audience.”1 Setting the Stage: Advantages of Writing and Publication A few may write “for the pleasure derived from the creative activity of writing and intellectual sharing, and the desire to advance knowledge and benefit mankind” and for these individuals, “writing may act as a channel for expressing the joy of scientific discovery, and may even be regarded as a leisurely pursuit.”1 An historical article on Jose Rizal4 that I researched for a year and a half before the occasion of his 150th anniversary and another on the evolution of indirect laryngoscopy5 that I researched for two years are personal examples of these. For most everyone else, there are career, professional, institutional and practical advantages that can be gained from writing and publication.6 As far as career benefits are concerned, “getting published in prestigious, scholarly journals may have the most direct bearing on your appointment, promotion, tenure and advancement within your institution, organization and discipline.”2 The “up or out” situation faced by many young to mid-career academics would have been easily avoided by publishing early. Moreover, publications are the primary basis for promotion and advancement in academe. Professional benefits are just as important. For junior consultants and younger faculty, “having published articles in reputable international journals are a great help when applying for positions in foreign institutions, and when applying for competitive overseas fellowships.”1 As editor of our specialty scholarly journal, I receive numerous urgent requests from postgraduate residents and young diplomates (unaware of the tedious editing and peer review process) to rush-publish research they undertook in training, in fulfillment of publication requirements for overseas positions or fellowships they are applying for. Had they realized this earlier, they would have been much better-prepared. For more established consultants, “gaining recognition as experts in a particular field at regional and international levels leads to invitations to lecture at scientific meetings and refresher courses, and appointments as consultants to external agencies, expert panels and advisory boards, reviewer and editorial boards.”1 Much of my local and international travels are direct offshoots of previous research, lectures and publications. These generate further research and publication opportunities in turn, as track records in research and publication are considered in “applications for, extension of, and further research funding.”1 Closer to home, publication “increases (the) depth of knowledge in a particular subject that complements and hones clinical (practical) skills, and enables better teaching of students, clinical trainees and postgraduates.”1 Indeed, a true professor must have something to profess, and a well-published professor can certainly profess what he or she does more authoritatively. Of course, the practical benefits gained from engaging in the research and publication process cannot be overlooked. The “inherent training gained during the process of manuscript preparation,” the “discipline of performing a thorough literature search, collating and analyzing data and drafting and repeatedly revising the manuscript”1 during the editing and review process, provide undeniable practical benefits to the author. Researchers who have published are much better positioned to evaluate scholarly publications, having themselves experienced the writing, editing and review process. In this era of “information overload” the published researcher can more effectively evaluate and utilize available evidence. Because of institutional benefits, it is in the best interests of our scholarly society to encourage scholarly writing, as “publication in peer-reviewed journals is arguably the most important means to achieve international recognition for an individual, department, hospital, and university.”1 Various international survey and ranking systems place a premium on such publication, explaining why Philippine academic institutions lag behind their counterparts in Asia and the rest of the world. It is also in the best interests of the Philippines that her clinicians, scientists, artists and scholars publish, as “the author’s country, and even the region, may also derive benefit from published work, particularly if it is on a topic of major importance.”1 At least in the medical field, Filipino publications have made their mark, albeit sparsely. The UP College of Medicine and National Health Sciences Journal Acta Medica Philippina is the source of material indelibly inscribed in the world medical map, and we certainly look forward to the Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery doing the same. The generous research allocation for Fellows and full support for our journal by the PSOHNS Board of Trustees are a step in the right direction, as are the annual awarding of the Outstanding ENT Specialist in Research and Editors’ Pick Outstanding Research Publication. In keeping with international practice, we should accord due public recognition to our excellent Reviewers and Editors at official PSOHNS functions such as Annual Conventions, if but for the recognition they reciprocally bring to the society. The American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery has journal Editors and Star Reviewers wear special ribbons at their Annual Meeting, and openly campaigns for participants to thank these reviewers for their contribution. On another note, I was elected President 2014-2016 of the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Journal Editors during the recent Joint Meeting of APAME and the Western Pacific Region Index Medicus and Index Medicus of the South East Asia Region of WHO in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia last August 15 – 17, 2014. This is fortuitous as we prepare to host the APAME Convention 2015 and Joint Meeting with WPRIM and IMSEAR at the WHO Western Pacific Region Office, Sofitel Hotel and Philippine International Convention Center from August 24-26, 2015 in conjunction with FORUM 2015. The other officers are: Executive Vice President Prof. Jeong-Wook Seo (Korea), Vice President for Internal Affairs is Prof. Kiichiro Tsutani (Japan), Vice President for External Affairs Prof. Dai Tao (China), Secretary-General Prof. Wilfred Peh (Singapore). The Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery is now indexed in the HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme of the World Health Organization www.who.int/hinari making us readily available to a multitude of users from developing countries and increasing our accessibility tremendously. Our society and journal can be accessed via http://extranet.who.int/hinari/en/browse_publisher.php?pub=695 In addition, APAMED Central (on which the Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery is indexed) has been formally ratified for indexing in the worldwidescience.org database during the World Wide Science Alliance annual meeting in Tokyo last October 2014. Henceforth, all articles from Oct 19 2014, including this issue, will be searchable on this database. Finally, I am especially thankful to our President and my friend, Howard M. Enriquez, MD and the PSOHNS Board of Trustees (especially the Scientific Committee Chair and my friend Elmo R. Lago, Jr., MD) for the support given to me, and our journal on my ninth year as Editor-in-Chief.

This research essay examines the emergence and development of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and its attempts to influence foreign policy. Established as the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1952, it was the first committee to have a specific portfolio alignment. The purpose of the committee was to ensure that a considerable number of parliamentarians could become informed about foreign affairs issues. The establishment of a committee for such a purpose was surprising in that proponents of parliamentary reform at that tune were strongly advocating that a comprehensive system of committees be created for the purposes of financial scrutiny of government expenditure and consideration of legislation. Against this background it is interesting that the new committee was not given - and indeed showed no intention of assuming - the role of scrutinising the activities of the Department of External (and later, Foreign) Affairs. It is also interesting that Prime Minister Robert Menzies instigated the committee despite the fact that the government - and particularly the Minister for External Affairs R G Casey - feared the committee might go beyond its terms of reference and attempt to exert influence on government policy. Consequently the government imposed severe restrictions on the committee's activities which resulted in the Opposition steadfastly refusing to participate in the work of the committee for 15 years. Once some of these restrictions were removed, the committee began to operate as a bipartisan committee in 1967 and promptly set about attempting to influence government policy in foreign affairs. Casey's worst fears were realised. Over the years the brief of the committee expanded into the areas of defence and trade. Eleven of the committee's reports address significant defence issues and since 1987 the committee has conducted extensive inquiries into trade matters. For the purposes of this research essay however I have focused on the development of the committee's interest and influence in the area of foreign affairs. Chapter One of this essay describes the background of parliamentary reform which resulted in the establishment of a comprehensive system of committees within the Australian Parliament. Against this background the emergence of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs is outlined in Chapter Two. Chapter Three identifies the major trends in the work of the committee while Chapter Four examines the influence and some of the mechanisms through which the committee has exerted pressure on foreign affairs policy. The conclusions of my research are addressed in Chapter Five. This research essay is based on an analysis of official committee documents which address foreign affairs issues from 1967 to the present. The major sources for the essay therefore are the reports of the committee, government responses to those reports and parliamentary debates. Other works consulted include academic journals and monographs. I have also gained numerous insights into the powers and limitations of committees through informal discussions with members of various committees and colleagues. To these people I am indebted for their thoughtful and provocative remarks. In particular I thank Professor John Halligan of the University of Canberra for his assistance and encouragement in bringing this research essay to its conclusion.

This thesis draws on David Harvey’s concept of “accumulation by dispossession” and an international political economy (IPE) approach centred on the institutional arrangements and power structures that privilege certain actors and values, in order to critique current capitalist practices of primitive accumulation by the global corporate extractive industry. The thesis examines how accumulation by dispossession by the global extractive industry is facilitated by the “free entry” or “free mining” principle. It does so by focusing on Canada as a leader in the global extractive industry and the spread of this country’s mining laws to other countries – in other words, the transnationalisation of norms in the global extractive industry – so as to maintain a consistent and familiar operating environment for Canadian extractive companies. The transnationalisation of norms is further promoted by key international institutions such as the World Bank, which is also the world’s largest development lender and also plays a key role in shaping the regulations that govern natural resource extraction. The thesis briefly investigates some Canadian examples of resource extraction projects, in order to demonstrate the weaknesses of Canadian mining laws, particularly the lack of protection of landowners’ rights under the free entry system and the subsequent need for “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC). The thesis also considers some of the challenges to the adoption and implementation of the right to FPIC. These challenges include embedded institutional structures like the free entry mining system, international political economy (IPE) as shaped by international institutions and powerful corporations, as well as concerns regarding ‘local’ power structures or the legitimacy of representatives of communities affected by extractive projects. The thesis concludes that in order for Canada to be truly recognized as a leader in the global extractive industry, it must establish legal norms domestically to ensure that Canadian mining companies and residents can be held accountable when there is evidence of environmental and/or human rights violations associated with the activities of Canadian mining companies abroad. The thesis also concludes that Canada needs to address underlying structural issues such as the free entry mining system and implement FPIC, in order to curb “accumulation by dispossession” by the extractive industry, both domestically and abroad.

On May 9, 1880, on an American ship named the Bullion docked in the harbor of Yokohama, Japan, John Ross stabbed his crewmate Robert Kelly to death with a knife. As was the common practice at the time for Westerners who committed crimes in Asia, Ross did not face trial for murder before local Japanese authorities, nor did Japanese law influence the outcome of the case in any way. Rather, Ross’s trial was conducted by Thomas van Buren, the local American consul in Kanagawa, Japan. The trial occurred under consular jurisdiction (described in chapter 1 in this volume), a form of extraterritoriality that was commonly asserted in the past by European great powers in states they deemed “uncivilized.” Japan, though soon to join the ranks of the civilized nations, was at the time of Robert Kelly’s death compelled to afford the Western powers a free hand in adjudicating the crimes of their countrymen within Japan. The American consular court in Kanagawa convicted John Ross of murder and sentenced him to death. Although Ross was in fact British, the court held that because he was a seaman on a U.S. vessel he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Ross’s death sentence was ultimately commuted to life imprisonment by President Rutherford B. Hayes. Apparently unsatisfied, in 1890 Ross brought a challenge to his murder conviction that rose to the Supreme Court. In the late nineteenth century the connections of American citizens to foreign places and foreign markets were rising rapidly. Extraterritorial jurisdiction was a European practice of long standing, but it became much more significant and extensive in the late nineteenth century. Ross’s case directly raised the question of the legality of such jurisdiction, not in terms of international law (that was generally unquestioned at the time), but in terms of domestic law. His case thus implicated the extraterritorial reach of constitutional rights at a time when imperialism was undergoing a major resurgence and the United States was assuming a more prominent place in international affairs than ever before.

“At the heart of the matter nuclear weapons are simply the enemy of humanity”— retired U.S. Air Force General Lee Butler, former Commander of Strategic Nuclear Forces, spoke these words in his testimony to a 1999 Joint Senate–House Committee on Foreign Affairs. They probably express the deep feelings of most of the world’s people, including most Americans. Towering mushroom blast clouds and the shapes of atomic weapons are common symbols of doom. The specter of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists haunts us, and the possibility of attacks on U.S. citizens with “dirty bombs”—a bomb made of conventional explosives that scatters radioactive materials—raises major concerns. As it should. Nuclear weapons and the nuclear waste that they generate truly are destructive to all life and must be controlled. If we fail to prevent their proliferation in the world and stop generating them ourselves, they could destroy us without respect for national boundaries—even without a real nuclear war or dirty bomb terrorist attacks. They already have poisoned great expanses of American lands from coast to coast. American soil, water, and air started accumulating radioactive pollution during the World War II race to build an atom bomb. Radioactive contaminants spread into the environment at every step in the process, from mining the uranium for bomb fuel and purifying and enriching the uranium to make plutonium, to detonating bombs to test them and disposing of the wastes. Radioactive materials currently contaminate buildings, soil, sediment, rock, and underground or surface water within more than two million acres administered by the U.S. Department of Energy in the 11 western states. All sorts of Americans were carelessly exposed to radioactive bomb fuels during WWII and the Cold War, but especially the atomic scientists, uranium miners, and bomb plant workers who were exposed to them every day. For nearly two decades, U.S. atomic bombs blew up and contaminated American lands. Both American soldiers at the test grounds and civilians on ranches or farms and in homes were exposed to the dangerous radioactive fallout (see appendix 5). Perhaps unknown to most Americans is the fact that radioactive contamination from U.S. atomic weapons tests also spread across the whole country and far beyond U.S. borders.