James5

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

I’ve been very impressed with the new ABC series The Hollowmen. It’s a mockumentary style series set in the Prime Minister’s “Central Policy Unit”, a unit set up by the Prime Minister to help him get re-elected. Though ostensibly they are public policy makers, their work mostly revolves around spinning issues and finding political palatable solutions to problems. Watching them as they ‘consult with stake holders’, develop ‘initiatives’, and ’seize momentum’ reminded me of Tom Davis excellent Public Policy Making subject at university, and is also making me reconsider a career in the public service.

The most recent episode, currently available on the website, is especially interesting as it deals with Australia’s relationship with Indonesia. The set-up is a massacre in West Papua and the Government trying to work out how to respond without offending the Indonesians.

There are two moments in the episode that really resonate with some of the concerns I’ve had about working in international law, and I think concerns that people generally have about the relevance and meaningfulness of international relations.

When the massacre is first brought to light and the CPU is working how they the Prime Minister can respond, the strongest response the public servants can think of is to “ask for restraint”. Anything more would be dangerous for bilateral relations - there’s a whole exploration of different trade sanctions and how difficult they would be for Australian industry too. One character mentions this is why he left DFAT, because they are so incapable of action. I guess that’s one frustration of the political/diplomatic side of international law - softly, softly, to get the result.

Another stand out moment was the discussion with the Australian Indonesian Human Rights Dialogue (AIHRD), a bilateral group that engages in dialogue on human rights. It was presented as a totally ineffectual ‘talkfest’ between the governments, barely able to agree on an agenda, it’s claim to fame being an eventual resolution to “agree to disagree” on human rights in West Papua. This is one of the questions I have received when I’ve talked about wanting to work for the Humanitarian Dialogue Centre, and is certainly a strong criticism of international institutions generally. Our UN tour guide said “Blah, blah, blah is better than war, war, war”; but when faced with UN conferences that have existed for 11 years without agreeing on an agenda and on-going fighting despite all the blah, blah, blah it’s understandable that people are sceptical!

I’d highly recommend you tune in to Hollowmen, Wednesday nights or each week on the ABC’s website. It’s public policy making in action!

Popularity: 9% [?]