Leighton Smith Podcast #288 - June 11th 2025 - Antonia Colibasanu

Romanians are still navigating the difficult path of building democratic institutions and a culture of transparency.

At the same time, widespread perceptions of corruption and cronyism have caused many Romanians to see little change from communist leadership.

Antonia Colibasanu, a lecturer on International Relations at the Romanian National University, backgrounds Romania’s position and future influence in Europe and analyses the difficulties the country is faced with.

She also summarises the country’s relationship between Russia, Ukraine, Poland and the rest of Europe.

And finally, we visit The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news Talks B. Follow
this and our wide range of podcast now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now, the Leyton
Smith Podcast powered by news Talks B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and eighty eight for June eleven,
twenty twenty five. Romania. I grew up knowing that Romania
was the home of Transylvania, which in turn was associated
with Dracula, howling wolves, silver bullets, silver crosses, as portrayed
in scary movies. Well that's not the profile of Romania today.

(00:49):
After decades as part of the Soviet Union, Romania is
maturing into a Western style democracy, although it's not yet
fully there. As with Poland, Romania has just had an
election which provided some considerable controversy. Romania is also included
in a list of countries that are important to the
rest of the world, and more importantly where it's headed. Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria.

(01:17):
Those states and more are worthy of more attention than
they're getting. And let's not forget the Black Sea. Antonia.
Karabasanu is a professor of Geopolitics and Geoeconomics and International
Relations at the Romanian National University, and as we've discovered,
she will provide plenty of information on the current state

(01:39):
of play and possibly the future of same. But first
I had a hard decision to make, and let me
lead you into it. Here are some current headlines that
I would have loved to have dealt with. Australia elects
weak tea bag to lead the country. Boy has it? Ever,
there's plenty to be said on that, Adirn. If she

(02:01):
insists on being remembered, I'll oblige. From Lindsay Mitchell the
UK's net zero strait jacket, crushing costs and wishful thinking.
Tas Mania quietly points to our socialist future.

Speaker 3 (02:15):
Now.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
That was written by Michael de Percy, who we had
guesting a few weeks ago, and I would have liked
to have included that too, but there's only so much.
Roger Paltridge also New Zealand's real economic problem too little capital,
not too much profit. But the shall we say subject

(02:36):
azure is something written by Owen Jennings, who has been
associated with farming etc. For a lifetime. Why the indecent
haste prime Minister, let me quote two sections of this,
because it's very important and we've touched on it before,
and so have other people. There are times when you
want your government to be in a greater hurry, when

(02:59):
reforms are urgently needed, like the moribund RMA. You just
wish the leadership would get on and deliver change. Occasionally
you need them to slow down or stop because the
matter is complex, has not been adequately risk assessed, needs
more research or longer time for public submissions or expert advice.

(03:21):
National dominated governments over the years have been cautious, even timid,
on reform. So it comes as a shock that our
usually risk averse prime minister is leading a strong charge
to deregulate the law controlling genetically modified organisms. It is
a matter of grave concern affecting all kiwis. What is

(03:42):
being proposed and rushed through will institute the most unrestrained
and least regulated regime in the world. The problem is
that much of the modifying process is a very tight
one way street, make one mistake, have one minor breach,
failed to consider one aspect, and it is possible to

(04:04):
be in a situation where there is no recovery, no
going back no way to get a genie back in
the bottle. National wants economic growth. Opening up the agricultural
sector to less regulated gene editing and the more wholesale
use of GMOs could be a quick way to get
quantum leaps in production, but there are no guarantees and

(04:26):
the evidence for increased production from gene manipulation is scant.
Acts wants to deregulate when possible, and New Zealand first
seems stuck in the headlights, concerned but not yet reaching
for the handbrake. Yet the changes are being hustled through
the rush to force changes to the regulations by a

(04:47):
typically reform shy National is raising questions in the farming community.
Why the indecent haste. Is there another agenda? Some of
the scientific community, spurred on by green interests, see GMOs
as a major mitigation tool for reducing ruminant methane emissions,
although the proof is very disputable. Rather than face the

(05:09):
reality that our ruminants are not causing any problem and
that decisive boldness to state that clearly is required, rather
than more taxpayer funding thrown at research, we are getting
a potentially dangerous backdoor mechanism. It is shortsighted. Let me
jump to the conclusion, mister Prime Minister, this is the
most important decision made in agricultural circles in decades, maybe ever.

(05:35):
Gene editing and the introduction of GMOs is most likely
a one way street. There is no going back. Such
a momentous decision involving such complex and fraught science, where
there are vested interests that need exposure, and where there
are significant reservations stated by industry and by consumer groups,

(05:55):
by scientists who have an in depth understanding of the issues,
is ringing loud alarm bells. As the leader of our nation,
it should weigh heavily on your conscience as to whether
your rushed introduction of the US changes is going to
not just return to haunt you personally and your cabinet team,
but have history record you as the Prime Minister who

(06:19):
made a fateful decision. All it takes would be to
establish a full and proper open inquiry process led by independent,
reputable persons that systematically traverse all the issues, listen carefully
to all sides of the debate, and reported back in
due time. Our farmers implore you to slow down. We

(06:40):
are with you on wanting progress. We want to see growth.
Our sector thrives on and leads on many fronts to
the nation's gain. But this is too hasty, indecently hasty.
I don't think I've read anything anything that I can
remember that was written so forcefully, so confrontingly, and maybe

(07:03):
even so important in my life. And I congratulate Owen
Jennings for writing it. And my message to the Prime
Minister is very simple. The Prime Minister before you left office,
because she could see what was coming. You want to
put yourself in that same category down the track. The
previous Prime Minister lives overseas pretty much because as people

(07:28):
are saying, she doesn't have the courage to live here again,
do you ought to fall into that category? There's an
old old saying, you know, old sayings that never die.
The old saying is stupid is as stupid does. In
a moment, we go to Romania. Buckerlan is a natural

(07:55):
oral vaccine in a tablet form called bacterial I say
it it'll boost your natural protection against bacterial infections in
your chest and throat. A three day course of seven
Buckelan tablets will help your body build up to three
months of immunity against bugs which cause bacterial cold symptoms.
So who can take buccolan well, the whole family from

(08:15):
two years of age and upwards. A course of buccolan
tablets offers cost effective and safe protection from colds and chills.
Protection becomes effective a few days after you take buccolin
and lasts for up to three months following the three
day course. Buccolin can be taken throughout the cold season,
over winter or all the year round. And remember Buckelan
is not intended as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but

(08:39):
may be used along with the flu vaccination for added protection.
And keep in mind that millions of doses have been
taken by kiwis for over fifty years. Only available from
your pharmacist. Always read the label and users directed and
see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker Auckland. Antonio

(09:13):
Colabasanu is a Senior Fellow for the Eurasia Program at
the Foreign Policy Research Institute. She is also Associate Professor
of geopolitics and Geoeconomics on International Relations at the Romanian
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration. Now there
is a very long list of qualifications that she has

(09:36):
but probably the most important one I've left to the last.
She is embedded with George Friedman and geopolitical futures before that,
as I just discovered a while back, she worked in
association was George at his previous operation, which was which.

Speaker 3 (09:58):
Was stratfor And yes, I've worked for way too long
in essence with George, but I'm glad to do so
my career.

Speaker 2 (10:09):
Well, I could only say that you must have a
lot of patience. So I welcome to the vodcast anyway,
strange way of getting here, but here we are. Look,
I want to start with something that I know will
find favor with those listening, and that is the blackout

(10:32):
that the Spanish experienced just a few weeks ago April
twenty eight. Actually, millions across Spain, Portugal and pats of
France were plunged into darkness after a massive unexpected power outage.
Metro systems stalled airport's ground to halt, hospitals switched frantically
to backup generators, and critical communication networks collapsed temporarily. Now,

(10:55):
of course we covered this in New Zealand, like everybody
did around the world. But the article that you wrote,
the first line of it is the incident proves that
true energy independence is a myth. Would you like to
expand on that?

Speaker 3 (11:11):
Of course, Well, basically you have no energy independence, and
that's because networks are interconnected. But beyond that, this push
towards the green energy needed to replace fossil energy sources
has creative vulnerabilities that are not necessarily understood and therefore

(11:38):
they cannot be fully managed. And that's probably the hardest
lesson that Spain and Portugal learned throughout the blackout. The
problem was that once you have mostly electricity coming from
green energy from solar and wind, you do not necessarily

(11:59):
have the backout the flow. You do not have an
ensured flow of energy and an ensured constancy of energy
that the other fossil fuels natural gas, which is not
necessarily a fossil fuel, and everything else is giving. So

(12:21):
what happened there is because of changes in temperature, everything
collapsed and then they didn't know how to put it
all back.

Speaker 4 (12:32):
So that lesson is likely going to get into another
lesson for Europe and the European Union in particular, where
we have this push towards green we have this idea
that we need.

Speaker 3 (12:46):
To manage climate change. And whatnot. But at the same time,
we tend to forget that all changes drive vulnerable elements,
and therefore, while we are doing this for one reason
or another, we need to be cautious about what could
go wrong. And I don't think we have that on

(13:08):
our mind. And I believe that right now, the policy discourse,
at least time this green energy push is going to
be modified because obviously, I mean, if nothing else, the
blackout push towards Okay, we also need reliable fossil fuels
to maintain constancy in our networks, and green energy cannot

(13:35):
ensure independence because everything is linked together. And guess what,
we also have vulnerable parts that are linked together because
this started in France but did not finish influence. So
all that points out that we're in a new thinking mode,
at least for green energy and everything that relates to it.

Speaker 2 (14:00):
So when somebody writes to me after hearing this and
says to me, what would she know? She's an economist,
she's not a sign scientists, So why does she have
the right to say that it's a myth?

Speaker 3 (14:15):
Well, bottom line, I've read a lot because I had to.
So in geopolitics, what we do is looking at those
vulnerable sectors that are driving instability, which means that you
are looking at elements that would cause unstable economics and

(14:37):
therefore unstable politics. So energy is the one factor that
cuts into both worlds, because without energy, you cannot really
sustain economic production and you cannot sustain social stability because
if you do not have economic production, you will have

(15:00):
likely protests and unemployment that drive from low economic production
and therefore political instability. Let alone. I mean, these these writings,
and you know, these readings that I've done during the
years starting with Stratford were also related to Russia and

(15:27):
Russia's strategy towards Europe and European Union, in particular because
Russia basically supported its strategy of resurrecting as a global
power through energy raw materials that it is selling all
over the globe and in particular for Europe oil and gas.

(15:52):
So I had to basically read a lot about what
energy means and what this i'd say idea of getting
less and less dependent on imports of oil and as
through green energy means for the European Union. For a while,

(16:14):
I'll also I also served as an honorary advisory in
my capacity of toe political analysts for a Romanian energy minister,
just because I knew how Russia is playing with all
sorts of things, including globbing from green for green energy
and Brussels at the time, because it had an interest

(16:38):
to maintain itself the only and sole provider of oil
and gas and cut down while the Europeans would cut
down all fossil fuel production and got into the green
energy side. That was profitable for Russia because it knew
that Europe needs fossil fuels to maintain this constancy, and

(17:02):
therefore it needed to have imports from Russia, while not
using themselves would lower the European Union capacity of truly
lowering dependency. Again, independency is a myth, but lowering dependency
was not and is not. So it's basically from the

(17:25):
study of the balance of powers, if you will, through
energy that I've learned all things about engineering processes that
refer to the way green energy is being produced, how
solar and wind are not necessarily reliable because they depend
on whether changes and they're very much volatile in some

(17:47):
parts more than others in Europe, and other things related
to how do you sustain production, how do you sustain
the push for policy making and all that sort of thing,
which is more political the later part in politicking in

(18:10):
Brussels that referred to the balance of power per se,
and not even discussing the economics repercussions.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
Okay, I asked that question because I knew the answer,
but I asked it for a specific reason. I wanted
to hear you say it. But in this part of
the world, Australia has just had an election, as you'd know,
and they've voted in a bunch of insane people, and
I mean that in a few cases, and as a

(18:43):
result of that, net zero is full on. Now net
zero is impossible. I know this from all the reading
that I've done, but specifically from one expat Kiwi, New Zealander,
who was a very highly ranked professor in engineering in
the UK pat Cambridge, and I've interviewed him on Northern

(19:06):
one occasion and he has explained it.

Speaker 3 (19:08):
Now.

Speaker 2 (19:09):
The reason I'm telling you this is because he visits
back here every couple of years and I know there
have been efforts to get him to talk with them,
with the politicians, those who are making the decisions and others,
and I'm about the only one who would interview him,
they didn't want to know. Albeit that, as I said,
he's an expant New Zealander, still a whole citizenship, that

(19:32):
he is highly that he is highly educated, and he
knows exactly what he's talking about and he explains it perfectly.
And net zero is a myth. I tell you that
for interest sake, I just wonder whether you had the
same or a similar approach. You took a similar line
toward COVID at its effect.

Speaker 3 (19:52):
Well basically covered as has been a virus that well,
everyone needed to stay away from. But at the same time,
there is a balance, and we need to think about
the effects that staying away and staying fully protected from

(20:13):
the virus, which is rather impossible, I might say, because
it's a virus. You couldnt be fully protected from a
virus unless you're very, very lucky or live on a
cliff somewhere, and even then who knows. I mean. But
besides that, getting into full protection chair basically gets to

(20:35):
have social effects because obviously there is the science that
says this could be deadly and this is how you
should protect and this is whatever, you know, the list
of things that you need to do. But from science
to imposing things that you need to do, you must do.

(21:00):
Then we are basically having the science taking over institutions
and institutions that relate to rights, to fundamental rights that
human beings should have in a working democracy, for instance,
which is what we strive for and what we hope

(21:21):
to maintain. Now, that caused a lot of side effects.
Basically we have the economic side effects. We had the
coconomic repercussions, which are very well known, and yes, to
a certain extent, it was probably good that we had
higher level of protection, higher level of reassuring ourselves that

(21:46):
we are doing the right thing that we have you know,
the right medicines, and therefore in order to get the
right medicines we need to slow down our economic captivity
and whatever. But getting ourselves into a situation where we
basically did not function as a society was that first

(22:09):
for the economics and later for the sociopolitics. I mean,
we wonder now in Europe at least, there's this discussion
about disinformation and how disinformation basically started during the pandemic. Now,
all fears came alive during the pandemic, and when fears

(22:32):
come alive, you basically have waves of narratives that refer
to those fears, And obviously, because we also live in
a world where we have Internet, where we have all
sorts of communication channels, and where we have states interested

(22:53):
in supporting their own agendas. So yes, states will take
those fears and will transform them into sort of propaganda narratives.
But the cause, the root cause of that was basically
the way we managed COVID. The fact that we made
off that virus, which was a very dangerous virus and

(23:15):
all that, but the fact that we made of it
a source of all fears and we kept it going
for years.

Speaker 2 (23:23):
How how suppressed was society in Romania during that period
and for how long.

Speaker 3 (23:33):
I would think, I mean, compared to others, and obvious China,
obviously China is the you know, the most the most
obvious example of suppressed society. But in Romania, I don't
think we had a level of suppression that went really

(23:54):
really high. There was the during the first two years,
there were the interdictions of you know, traveling from one
place to another, maintaining social distance, making sure that people
of elderly age stay in for the rush hours and whatnot.

(24:19):
So it was a mild kind of suppression. But at
the same time Romania was on the borderland. And when
I say this, I say it is a democracy that
is still building itself, that still remembers the suppression that

(24:39):
was in a sense much higher than the suppression in
the Eastern Bloc. So bottom line, it was a fertile
land for everything, including this information campaign, including all sorts
of social engineering, if you will. So even if we

(25:04):
had a mild suppression code and code, and we had
the this idea that mainly in the main cities you
are very much surveilled in what you're doing and you
should not do this and this and that, then in
the rural side, in the non urban side, it was

(25:24):
a totally different way of living. And this clash between
the urban and the non urban. Uh, the idea that
some could still impose on the people's will while we
are still building our democrats and democratic rights and all
that and democratic institutions has created an environment that we

(25:51):
have to deal with even today.

Speaker 2 (25:53):
Were you aware of how difficult life got in this
in this country, in New.

Speaker 3 (25:59):
Zealand, to tell you the thirst, No.

Speaker 2 (26:02):
No, we experienced totalitarianism and it's not an exaggeration. It
mightn't have been the worst kind of totalitarianism, but it
was a good step into it, and no one will
deny that. Now, same with Australia and the state of Victoria.
There was a race between the government in Victoria and

(26:23):
the government New Zealand to see who could be the biggest,
the biggest tyrant. But for another day, that would make
an interesting detail. In fact, I might even send you
something to show you what it was like. But it was.
It's recognized as being as bad as I've got anywhere
in the world. Amazingly, I hope I just live in

(26:46):
hope that the population of New Zealand has learned a
lesson from it. Now, if we turn our attention to
the election that you've just had, we don't have to
spend too long on it. But it was a mess,
was it not.

Speaker 3 (27:03):
I'd say it was one of the most interesting cases
in recent elections because in a way we had all
the problems that the pandemic brought forward, basically between the
urban and the non urban. It was a case of

(27:25):
international interference. And I am not saying only Russian because
it's an only Russian interference. Again, all major powers are
taking their share when they see a fertial ground to
promote and influence the public, and that was the case

(27:46):
in our election season, and it was also a pointing
case on how institutions are failing to provide trust to
the basic trust for the population, because the result actually
pointed out that there was the population basically challenging the mainstream,

(28:09):
but at the same time challenging the whole system, so
saying that we no longer trust the system that was
built starting nineteen nineties and we want something different. We
don't really care how that different looks like. And while

(28:31):
we are still very much trustful into the Western world
which means NATO, US EU, we want to challenge how
things are done internally, and that I believe is actually
one major result of the last five plus years in Romania,

(28:57):
with the pandemic included. I mean, that's that's how I
read it right now, and I believe that in the
next two years, if nothing will be done with reference
to restruct showing change and so on that the population

(29:19):
has voted for, then we might have a case where
the so called sovereignist populist parties are getting full control
in parliament. Because we have parliamentarian elections in almost three
years coming up, So we're getting into the campaign.

Speaker 2 (29:40):
Give me a short profile of Nikosa dam who is
the new president.

Speaker 3 (29:45):
So the new president is an independent. It's coming from
the independent branch of politics and so called pro European
populist branch. And many here would challenge me by saying populist,
but bottom line, it is the Union for Romania, which

(30:10):
is his brainchild, that has been the first serious populist
party in Romania and has campaigned against the mainstream parties
here basically saying that the system is not working, the
system is corrupt, we need to have something different, without

(30:31):
necessarily naming what that's something different would look like. So
he was not a member and did not stay on
as a member of the party, and he basically went
into the election season as an independent because his former

(30:54):
party had its own candidate and therefore got in and
got elected on this populist platform of I as a
person as an independent, want to really uh support the change,
want to really come forward with the change, and I

(31:18):
am a pro European. This was his main feature.

Speaker 2 (31:23):
If you will, sorry you signed your pro European or he.

Speaker 3 (31:28):
Was, he was pro European, So he is pro European
that's that's his main campaign promise, which means basically, I
am a supporter of the EU. I have been educated
in the EU style. I have been educated in France.

(31:51):
So he's a former no National International Olympic in mathematics.
I studied in Paris for his PhD. So his profile
is that of an intellectual that is coming from the
European class of intellectuals, but at the same time is

(32:15):
challenging how things are being done in Romanian politics and
has been doing that for the last ten plus years
as a former mayor of Bucharest now and as the
founder of this pro European populist party that I've talked about.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
So back on May eleven, you published fault Lines in
the East, Romania's political transformation and Europe's future and analysis.
Here's a quote from it. The outcome will influence not
only Romania's governance and regional stability, but also the EU's
Eastern cohesion, particularly in Moldova and Poland. As nationalist populist

(33:01):
rhetoric gains traction across Europe during a period of geopolitical
uncertainty and democratic fragility. That sounds very insecure.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
Well, it is insecure. Because not only because this is
fertile ground for this information and whatnot, but this is
also fertile ground for political instability. The economics are not
very stable, obviously, and this is partly an effect of

(33:33):
the pandemic, but also partly an aspect of the fact
that these countries have been the most emerging economies of Europe.
So in a sense they needed the stability of Western
Europe to thrive, but did not have that during the
last ten years. So there is this idea of what

(33:56):
do we do next, considering all these trade wars, all
these elements of instability that are threatening the life of
what we observe to be our foundation of growth and
even our model for development, which is the West in
its entirety. And at the same time we are on

(34:20):
the borderline, and therefore from the Baltic Sea to Romania
you have societies that are coming to accept their role
on the borderline, which also means military engagement or potential
military engagement with Russia. That's the common threat. And at

(34:44):
the same time they do not necessarily have an anchor anymore.
And I'm not only referring to the US as an anchor,
but I'm also referring to the European Union as an
anchor in their case, where they're observing the EU having
to deal with its own problems, with the Eurozone in particular,

(35:09):
having to deal with its own problems, and states that
are member states of the EU no longer longer being,
at least in their declarations, not even being united, not
exerting themselves as a united front anymore, but getting more nationalistic,

(35:34):
getting more focused on their own internal problems, which is natural.
But this gets to be discussed in the Eastern European
countries as so what do we do next? We fear Russia.
We do not know exactly what future lies for us
in the European Union, and therefore there is some hope

(36:00):
that the European Union could act somehow, but at the
same time, we don't know if that's the post stability.
So that's where the insecurity comes from. And we've seen
this during the last elections in Poland, where the conservative

(36:21):
candidate won basically saying well, we need a balance. The
population send the message of we need a balance. We
need to make sure that we sustain our traditions, that
we keep our boundaries with regards to everything that the

(36:41):
EU pushes us to do and in a sense, because
we are also talking about internal politics in the case
of Poland, keep a balance between the pro German, pro
European camp, which is led by the current Prime Minister
and his party, and a balance to the pro American camp,

(37:05):
which is led by Navrowski, the current president. And now
there is also an issue of Trumpism, and I don't
don't I don't know if we want to get into
this because obviously the American influence here is also getting
in through the new kind of politics and the new
kind of campaigning that the US has been dealing with,

(37:31):
and Trump has been pushing as a new style of politics,
as a new style of diplomacy, and this all is
kind of influencing the debate.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
So the battle for Poland is not over.

Speaker 3 (37:46):
I don't think so. I believe that Poland is still
trying to discover itself. There are many that are making
analogies to the past and are pointing out the historical
cycles for Poland, and some are even pointing to the

(38:11):
way Poland looked like in the thirties, which is, you know,
the same is said about Romania. However, I don't think well,
history repeats itself, obviously, but the shape of that repetition
is different. So I believe that right now we're living

(38:32):
in a more complex world and the battle, the so
called battle between East and West, is also a battle
about what kind of Poland does the population really want
to have? What?

Speaker 2 (38:50):
And if i'm if I might, how do you how
do you pronounce his name?

Speaker 3 (38:55):
No, Rocky Navarovskiovsky, Yeah, Navarrovsky, it's I don't know. The
W comes as a V from what I've learned from
the Polish TV.

Speaker 2 (39:11):
Anyway, Dorovsky? All right? Since is what win? And I'm
quoting not from you but from Michael Krans if that
means anything. Commentators of all stripes have been eager to
pigeonhole the election as a win for Russia or as
the nail in the coffin of Poland's warm relationship with Ukraine.

(39:32):
In truth, it's none of those things. Politics here, certain
is never so simple. The raise a thin margin of
Sunday's election, and indeed, the divided, hamstrung government that has
existed here for the last thirteen months is emblematic of
a deeper fight about the nature of Polish identity in
the twenty first century, and there's a quote, if I might,

(39:53):
because I like it from somebody who back in the
twenties made the comment that most beloved state of the
Polish people is in decision, which seems to fit what
you were saying.

Speaker 3 (40:05):
M Yeah, indeed, And I think the question mark is
not about his win but about the extreme right and
I really mean the extreme right Confederazia in Poland and
how that goes, because right now the Conservative Party has

(40:28):
won this vote, but it is the first time that
the Conservatives and Nabrovski has done an understanding on some
of the major points regarding what needs to be kept
for the constitutional justice institutions and the courts basically in Poland,

(40:51):
and some constitutional rights and you know, the abortion and
all that stuff. But those are bullet points coming from
the so called Tarun Declaration that he signed together with
the candidate of Conford. Dederatia and Confederatia is the very

(41:11):
extreme right wing party which has indeed the flavor of
the very nationalistic, sometimes very pro Russian in declaration. And
one thing, and this is an important footnote that I'd
like to insert here in Poland and in Romania both

(41:36):
and in Eastern European states. There are no such thing
of pro Russian candidates because the population is anti Russian,
so you cannot be a full pro Russian candidate. The
narratives that you take may be influenced by Russia, and

(41:58):
the politicians are sometimes very much tied to Russia through
previous engagements because these have been former satellite and therefore
they still have ways to get to the politicians and
influence them through money or through other engagements. So they
don't look straightforward to the so called pro Russian electorate

(42:25):
because there is no such thing. No one would be
elected here if they say openly I'm pro Russian, but
they would be elected if they would go with anti
Ukrainian narratives or anti European Union narratives, or anti American
narratives at times, or anti NATO narratives, which is more

(42:47):
complex in a way, but better for Russia to get
their individuals. They are political players in so that's that's
one important footnote. And for Confederatia to get back to
the Polish election, this is exactly it. I mean. The
question is how will the Conservatives, which are traditionally a

(43:11):
pro American party in Poland and are not necessarily against EU,
but they want a more let's say, a better voice
for Poland within the EU. How will they manage a
partnership that they've enforced by signing the Storun Declaration with

(43:32):
a very extreme right party which is against the EU
and has narratives that go against the American interest as well.
So that's that's the question for the coming years.

Speaker 2 (43:43):
I think you mentioned a month ago you mentioned foreign policy.
What is the what is the influence of Romanian foreign
policy in Europe?

Speaker 3 (43:55):
Well, that's a very good question. Romania has managed to
get countries like France and Germany to acknowledge the Black
Sea as an important geopolitical note, but only recently so.
Romanian foreign policy has been, in a sense adaptive to

(44:18):
the larger players. It has worked together with Poland to
acknowledge the Eastern European risks for the European Union, and
it has worked together with Poland even in NATO as
the strategic partners that want to get the US closer

(44:41):
to the Eastern border, but has not been very vocal.
Romania has started to be vocal only recently, and by
recently I mean during the last one year one year
and a half. Very recent also because it was fearful
of Russia, and Romania I think is likely the most

(45:05):
fearful country of Russia considered Russia is on its border,
and it sees Russia is still a mighty threat to
its security. And considering this, the foreign policy push was
mainly to get allies from the European Union, from NATO,

(45:29):
to get the US together with others to push forward
elements that would secure its borders, but never alone. So
Romania has not ever been like Poland, for instance, I
want this and I will fight for it with regards

(45:49):
to its foreign policy, because it thought always that that
kind of attitude would have attached to it a risk
that it cannot bear, it cannot solve. That's a more
let's say shy adaptive and a posture that is likely
due to the geographical position. I mean, it regards multiple fronts.

(46:15):
It is the Black Sea is the most important in
terms of Russian threat, but at the same time the
Western Balkans, and it sees that region only as a
challenging region and something that you need to be aware of.
And that's why the adaptive stands.

Speaker 2 (46:36):
Okay, now, the importance of the Black Sea, which country
would you say has the I mean, nobody owns it,
but which country has the right to the greater claim
do you think?

Speaker 3 (46:49):
Well, I would say that in history we had the
greater claims coming from Russia or Turkey through you know,
Ottoman Empire or the Russian taurist To empires and so on.
Right now we have the risk of the country of

(47:10):
the Sea becoming split, I think that's the best word
to use, split between Russia and Turkey in terms of
economic zones, but also in terms of influence, and the
push of Romania is basically to maintain Turkey and Bulgaria,

(47:33):
but especially Turkey involved in the security of the Black Sea,
to make certain that there is always a counterbalance to
the Russian influence and that Turkey and Russia did not
get to an understanding of sorts, which is not impossible

(47:55):
historically speaking now also with regards to the Black Sea,
to make things more complicated. When Crimea became independent, we
in Romania where very much happy, even if there were
conflicts around islands and whatnot, but we were very much
happy because Russia's posture was pushed away. So in a sense,

(48:21):
there was this new state that was taking a chunk
of the Russian of the former USSR part of the
Black Sea, because the Black Sea is a closed sea
and therefore without having international waters, you always have to
deal with neighbors, which is why for Romania wasn't happy

(48:43):
the moment that Ukraine took part of the USSR, the
former USSR part. That was a happy time considering we
were no longer bordering the USSR, but we were bordering
Ukraine now. With Crimea being taken over since twenty fourteen,
Romania got to be on the border with Russia again,

(49:05):
which is you know, the main question is whether Russia
will come closer and what could Russia do from the
facto position that it holds now that Crimea is basically
covering a big part of more than half of what

(49:27):
Ukraine held previously. So that's where we stand right now,
and that's why Romania is also very much supportive of
Ukraine getting back its share of the Black Sea, because
that basically means that we are going to be bordering
Ukraine again and not Russia.

Speaker 2 (49:48):
So let's target something very local as far as the
area is concerned, the Russians. The Russians took a place
called Snake Island back in February twenty two when they do.
I think it was on the first day that they
went berserk, but more recently it has fallen back into

(50:09):
Ukraine's hands. Is that significant? By I mean we're talking
about a forty six acre rocky outcrop here. Does that
have any significance? Do you think?

Speaker 3 (50:20):
Oh? Well, But certainly for the region and certainly for
Romania that that is important because the Snake Island basically
makes it taking Russia. Taking the Snake Island basically made
impossible for Ukraine to continue trading through the Black Sea.

(50:41):
So if you're looking at the map, the Snake Island
is very very close to Romani, I'm shure, and it
basically if you cross from the Snake Island to Crimea,
if you just draw a line on the map, you
are basically having the coast of Ukraine completely off the

(51:05):
charts of the Black Sea, and that territory being taken
meant that you basically have no way you as Ukraine,
have no way to protect your coastline. That's why Ukraine
mined the sea, and that's why we have both Ukraine

(51:29):
Hints and Russians dealing with mining operations during those days.
Because the worst fere for Ukraine was that the Russians
would get on the shore and by taking the coastline
would basically take the economic lifeline of Ukraine, considering trade
was being done mostly through the Black Sea, and by

(51:51):
keeping the Snake Island would have meant that Romania had
problems helping Ukraine with trade or anything, because that would
would have meant that Russia is really clear to the
so called Danube Mouth, which is the way out for

(52:15):
most of Ukrainian trade today. So in other words, that
that was a blocking posture, and that was strategically a
way for Russia to make sure that by blocking economic
operations of Ukraine will it would eventually take over Kiev,

(52:40):
even if militarily that would have been impossible. In a sense,
the economic lifeline being cut would have meant that Kiev
could eventually fall off. Now taking over the Snake Island
basically reversed that stance. So that's why it was very
important that Ukraine managed to take back the Snake Island

(53:03):
several months after.

Speaker 2 (53:04):
Does that mean it'll become a target for Putin again?

Speaker 3 (53:09):
I don't think so, and it is not the island
that is now determined target and the reason is because
there there is no naval posture anymore in the Black
Sea by the Russians, so the Ukrainians managed to cut

(53:29):
that to almost zero. And at this point I think
Pudtin is looking to the ports of Odessa and to
generally to the Ukrainian coastline through land operations and no
longer through sea operations because it has no Russia has

(53:52):
no capabilities to employ to take back the Snake Island,
so what it wants is to basically take the coast,
take the southwestern coast of Ukraine and managed to come
back to a posture where it can effectively control all
the trade routes in the Black Sea that Ukraine has.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
Before we leave the Black Sea, I have a question
for you. You have been to Odessa.

Speaker 3 (54:23):
I have, but not during wartime.

Speaker 2 (54:25):
No no, no, no no. I tell you why I ask.
There was a book that came out on Odessa in
twenty eleven, written by a fellow called Charles King, and
on my radio program I made mentioned to it quite
a bit at the time because I was fascinated by
Odessa and I wanted to get there at some stage

(54:46):
and get to know it. So in twenty fifteen, which
is ten years ago, we were on a cruise. A
whole bunch of us from New Zealand were on a
cruise and it was to do with the Anzac centenary
and it was announced that we would not be going
into the Black Sea because it was developing dangerous time.

(55:08):
I can't remember exactly what was going on, but it
was probably something along the lines that we've been discussing,
and so we didn't get to Odessa, and that was
the one place I wanted to go. And now I
believe it's not worth going to Why in your opinion,
having been there, was Odessa or is Odessa still hopefully

(55:31):
such a romantic place.

Speaker 3 (55:34):
Well, because all travelers from north to southeast to west
have something to do with Odessa. There is almost Roman
architecture and Italian architecture dominating Goddessa. So this is a

(55:59):
sort of a hidden place where you would not expect
to see that kind of architecture, but you're still seeing it.
There is the domination, the domination, the cultural domination of
the Italians that have been the world's the the European

(56:21):
medieval merchants of the time, and that kind of made
of Odessa a very important strategic port on the Black Sea,
but also a very interesting cultural port. I don't remember
now the name of the poet, the Ukrainian poet that

(56:47):
got to being exiled in Odessa. But there is also
a fascinating history of how Russian and Ukrainian poets both
have held Odessa very dear because they were either exiled
or they were either fascinated by the place and managed

(57:11):
to stay there for a number of years. So there
is this romantic approach of Odessa the city of poetry.

Speaker 2 (57:19):
Okay, so there is there is another reason that I've
just recalled that Edessa is worthy of a little more discussion.
It was a fairly healthy Jewish city, I believe true,
and there are some people in New Zealand who have
his you know, the history comes from Odessa. And I

(57:42):
just wondered what the attitude to Jews now is. And
the reason for this is she probably worked out is
because of what's going on in America and Australia. Not
so much here, but it's it's there and in other places.
With regard to the assault on Jewish.

Speaker 3 (58:02):
Folk, well, I will say that Odessa and much of
the Ukrainian cities Kiev two that had Jewish communities important
Jewish communities are not having them anymore because of the
Soviet Union that basically started right after the end of

(58:25):
the of the Second World War. But that aside, I
am noticing in places where we did not have any
kind of discussion before about Israel in Gaza, about the

(58:46):
Middle East in general, and about the rise of the
Jewish community as well. I am noticing elements that are
coming alive. What do I mean by that? In places
like the Czech Republic, where you would not see any
discussion about the Middle East, and that was probably the

(59:09):
country that's closest to Israel during the last thirty years,
if not more well thirty years, because that's basically after
the end of the Cold War. I have been there
recently and have witnessed a protest, a pro Palestine protest,

(59:30):
and a community that was very vocal against Israeli right,
and that usually means that there is something going on
with regards to the Jewish community being seen in another
kind of light. So these elements, these social protests and

(59:56):
discussions about the Middle East have been very very popular
in Western Europe.

Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
What about in Romania?

Speaker 3 (01:00:06):
In Eastern Europe you don't see that. And in Romania
last I think it was last week that I have
seen people on the streets with pro Palestine cards, and
right before the elections, even if it wasn't very clear

(01:00:28):
which side these protesters were supporting, I mean for the
Romanian elections. Now. Also in Romania, the Jewish community is
a sort of an expat community right now. They are
coming in for the sides, the former Jewish sides. Romania

(01:00:51):
has this history of having the Jews sent back to
their home country during the communist times. And if if
you read, because we were talking earlier about Robert Kaplan's
work that was a big chunk of his discovery in

(01:01:14):
the seventies, was referring to the way that the communist
regime of Romania at the time, which was kind of
a particular totalitarian regime, was trading almost the Jewish community
with Israel. So there is an ambiguous past which was

(01:01:39):
translated into good business and into a community that is
very welcomed because it does business with Romania. It supports
the entrepreneurial spirit. So there isn't much talk about the
Jewish community per se, but there are weird attempts. And

(01:02:04):
by weird attempts, I say these discussions about what happens
in the Middle East are likely going to lead to
some discussion with regards to the way the Jewish community
is being is being seen in Romania, not to mention
that not in the last round of election, but especially

(01:02:26):
during the the first round of election, we had the
so called right wing historical elements Legion or not, which
is our inter war that's a Nazi style of party,

(01:02:48):
which was pretty vocal during the first round with George
Escu and less vocal during the second round with with
this pro Russian, the so called pro Russian Simeon that
ran into the election. However, for me, for my generation,

(01:03:12):
discovering those narratives was a total new thing because we
were not even aware of the kind of narratives the
former Nazi party would play against the Jewish community at
the time. Coming back to that now is a major

(01:03:36):
question mark for me as an analyst. Why is this
happening while we have all these good links for the
business communities, you know, in Israel and Romania both, Why
is this happening while there was really silence and throughout

(01:03:56):
the Eastern Bloc with regards to the Jewish community and
in Romania in particular, why do we have all of
a sudden a discussion about Gaza, about Israel and about
the Middle East, when I'm not saying that we shouldn't,
but we did not have such a public interest into

(01:04:17):
the matter.

Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
So before we go, I've got a couple of questions.
One is, can you recommend a good book on the
history of Romania.

Speaker 3 (01:04:31):
I can recommend a few, but readers will not be
very happy to read academic books, so I will recommend
the travel and academic and history book. But Robert d. Kaplan, actually,
in Europe's Shadow this is after a recent, somewhat recent

(01:04:53):
trip to the region in between twenty fourteen twenty sixteen,
so it should cover also years that Romania has towards Russia.
And there's a bonus. The trip also covered the Republic

(01:05:17):
of Moldova, so there is also a history of relations
between Romania, the tensions between Romania and Moldova that are
covered in the book. And it's easy to read.

Speaker 2 (01:05:32):
And I like it very much that it's in europe Shadow,
did you say by Robert Kaplan?

Speaker 3 (01:05:36):
Yes, In Europe Shadow by Robert Dick Caplan, Yes, excellent.

Speaker 2 (01:05:40):
Now the second point is not a question, actually, it's
a statement. I want to clarify something I said that
I knew people here who who emanated from Odessa. I
made a mistake, so I'm rectifying it now. They didn't.
They came from Romania, and they're very close friends too,

(01:06:01):
and they're just lovely people. But there have been a
number of Romanians who have settled in New Zealand over
the years, earlier on really sort of post war that's
the Second World War, and they've added a great deal
to the atmosphere of the country. I think, Antonia, it's

(01:06:24):
been a pleasure. I want to thank you very much,
and I trust that the opportunity will provide itself again
to have another discussion.

Speaker 3 (01:06:36):
Well, thank you very much, and I hope we will
have the opportunity to talk more about the region and
Europe in general, because we have interesting times coming along,
I think more and more interesting, so we will have
topics to cover.

Speaker 2 (01:06:53):
I think you're right, Antonio, and I'll spell it for you.
Co l ib as a n u.

Speaker 3 (01:07:03):
It's a difficult Romanian name.

Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
No, not difficult to talk, but datsu. So thank you,
Thank you once again, and you take care. We'll talk again.

Speaker 3 (01:07:14):
Thank you very much. You take care too. All the
best banks.

Speaker 2 (01:07:32):
I went to the mail room for podcast two hundred
and eighty eight, missus producer, I will say good morning
and good morning to you later all good evening or
afternoon or whatever wherever you might be at the moment,
it's good morning indeed, So why didn't you? Why did
you lead us?

Speaker 5 (01:07:48):
Leighton Paul says, It's been noted that the greatest enemy
of the left is reality. As Google's AI learned from
the historical record, it developed a clear right wing bias.
Of course, the developers intervenes, and suddenly we had Google's
AI showing US African vikings. So if the truth always
does come out, AI may become a valuable ally. I

(01:08:10):
particularly look forward to the legal profession being decimated by AI. Currently,
we're all stuck in a game where it costs you
two hundred and fifty dollars every time you ask for
clarification of the rules, and justice favors the wealthiest litigant.
The activist judges and parasitic lawyers should think twice about
fleecing the public and ignoring Parliament's will forever. There is

(01:08:34):
a replacement coming that will work accurately, far quicker, and
far cheaper. Twenty four to seven The AI Divorce lawyers,
Bill will not consume the entire estate.

Speaker 2 (01:08:43):
That's Paul. I wonder if you've given consideration to the
fact that the activist judges, etc. Have duly considered what
you've mentioned and proceeded accordingly with some vigor in many cases.
From Murray, I am a regular listener to your podcast
and benefit from the information gleaned and presented on your show.

(01:09:06):
I appreciate that I recently listened to a radio interview
which I would appreciate your reaction to. I apologize if
this is a long email. The interview was with a
World Vision Youth ambassador who explained that in December twenty
twenty four, she visited the Solomon Islands to learn and

(01:09:27):
plan how this region could be aided with support. She
explained that this community depended on their farms to provide
the food that they needed to survive, and apart from fishing,
this was their main source. But due to the rise
in sea levels because of climate change, the farmers were
struggling to maintain their crops, which are located close to

(01:09:49):
the shoreline, and rising sea levels were damaging and restricting
their ability to farm successfully. I personally don't describe to
the climate change belief, particularly regarding carbon emissions, but this
report of actual rising sea levels did offer compelling evidence.
I thought of doing a Google search regarding this situation,

(01:10:10):
but I thought I might get a more reasonable explanation
from yourself. It concerns me that youths are accepting the
argument for climate change, even while part of such an organization.
If you have any information you could pass on to
explain the situation in the Solomon Islands, I would be
most grateful. Appreciate your work and the compelling interviews Murray.

(01:10:35):
I appreciate all that. Thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
I have replied to Murray this morning before we recorded this. Obviously,
I have seen video on television or probably online actually
some time ago with regard to this, and I have
to say that I'm skeptical. The situation is real, though

(01:10:59):
you can't deny that they have a problem, but what
causes the problem is really the issue at hand.

Speaker 3 (01:11:06):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:11:06):
I went through all my books and I couldn't find
any reference to the Solomon Islands, probably or possibly because
the books were published before this arose. The only one
that was of any use to me was Ian Plymer's
Green Murder, A Life Sentence of Ned Zero with no parole,

(01:11:27):
and I read the chapter that's relevant to this doesn't
make any mention of the Solomons, but deals with Tuo
Valou or Tabalu quite quite well. And at the end
of the podcast, which is undoubtedly after the mail Room,
I will quote you some of it because it's.

Speaker 5 (01:11:48):
Worthy, Leighton, George says, in the Salt Pact between Russia
and the USA, it has stated that strategic nuclear bombers
must be openly displayed at a designated airfield in both countries.
The purpose of this is to allow both countries to
monitor the bombers, as the USA provides intelligence to Ukraine.

(01:12:10):
The attack on the Russian airfield puts USA in breach
of said treaty. This frees Russia to now conceal its
nuclear strategic bombers PS, says George, with regard to your
comments on Putin's lack of cooperation, how can Trump negotiate
peace when USA is a protagonist in the conflict.

Speaker 3 (01:12:30):
That's from George.

Speaker 2 (01:12:32):
George, give me a follow up to that and explain
what you mean by a protagonist if you would.

Speaker 3 (01:12:38):
Looking forward to that.

Speaker 2 (01:12:40):
From Cliff, I have been enjoying your podcast interviews for
some year or two now, and they get better and
better each week. Please note that missus producer in the diary,
all those you have as guest speakers say what's needed
about the issues relevant to the world and New Zealand today,

(01:13:01):
particularly where the settiments expressed are calls for change for
the betterment of all. I often wonder how many of
those who can really make changes in the halls of
power listen in and more importantly, really take on board
the sentiments expressed. I'm sure you have an idea, especially
when you read unnamed correspondence just prior to sign off,

(01:13:24):
but the reason for writing. In the latter part of
your conversation with Nigel Horrocks and Justin Matthews in Podcast
two eighty five, you voiced some thoughts about the potential
of aliens getting a hold of and hijacking AI robots
that will have in time become commonplace in many businesses
and domestic circumstances. I think something like that could well happen,

(01:13:48):
but it is not so likely that such an alien
intrusion could be from a far off galaxy, more likely
closer to home. Please bear with me, and he then
quotes some biblical references and finishes up with. We already
have an example of ai demonic can control in the

(01:14:09):
Seul sets a three case who died by suicide in
February last whilst in a one on one relationship with
a chatbot. Well could because the guy wasn't pretty much
on the level mentally. But I wouldn't venture anything other
than other than that. However, your suggestions are interesting. I

(01:14:34):
appreciate it.

Speaker 5 (01:14:35):
Leiden Stephanie says the implications of Nati Tower's purchase of
land on which seventy one schools are situated cannot be understated.
What the Crown has allowed is nothing short of crippling
for future taxpayers and perpetuity. Usually, the Ministry of Education
doesn't have to pay rent on the land for schools
because it owns the land. Now, with this deal, the

(01:14:58):
tribe will be milking easy money and we are talking
hundreds of thousands off the taxpayer. Whoever came up with
this treaty settlement is a real piece of work. Is
this expense counted in the budget? I'm just awe struck
at the stupidity of the government in allowing itself to
be forever a tenant. I suppose they could remove all
the buildings and relocate the schools to other locations not

(01:15:21):
owned by the tribe. But no doubt that outclaws would
have been sewn up pretty tight.

Speaker 3 (01:15:26):
That's from step.

Speaker 2 (01:15:27):
Step this producery. You familiar with that story? No, I'm not,
actually no, no under of mine. So Patrick Basham gave
a most excellent reason why the people on the left
almost always think highly of themselves, the reason being that
they have never been allowed to fail. They are incessantly

(01:15:49):
worshiped by the activists, inoculated by the media, and rewarded
by the elites. The greatest products of these incubators of
narcissism include Greta Thunberg, who, since this letter was written,
has found herself in a very satisfactory position as far
as I'm concerned, Carmala Harris, and of course our very

(01:16:10):
own Jasinda Adern. While serial brat Greta Thunberg sails to
Gaza alongside eleven other left wing activists and serial word
salad maker Kamala Harris backs violent LA rioters who attacked
federal officers, serial virtue signaler Jasinda Adern releases her self

(01:16:32):
adulating memoir entitled A Different Kind of Power and of course,
Oprah Winfrey is endorsing Jacinda, just like she did Kamala Harris.
The way Oprah formed over Adern as a Dern swooned
over herself made me nauseous. Thankfully, there is hope I
will buy the Jasinda book, but not the proper gandized

(01:16:54):
one written by Jasinda Adern, but the unauthorized one written
by David Cohen. Your audience might want to know that
they can register on jacindabook dot com to get preview chapters,
the title, reveal release dates, pre order offers. I bet
you that David Cohen's just send the book will outseld

(01:17:16):
just Cinda A. Durns just send the book in New
Zealand because just Sinda Adern is for they them, David
Cohen is for you. Well, if not David Cohen, at
least Winston Peters is. Cheers Jim. I think I think
I think I endorsed that letter, actually quite strongly, Lawton.

Speaker 5 (01:17:36):
I'm smiling. Lorna has just a couple of words for you.
She said it was excellent podcast yesterday that was the
fourth of June. She would have been talking about thank
you for keeping us, saying well, do your best don't you.

Speaker 2 (01:17:51):
Well, I suppose I do. I hope I do. But
I'm just wondering to about my own Saturday sometimes, so
do I Yes, thank you, You're dismissed.

Speaker 3 (01:17:58):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:17:59):
So you next week, if I decide, Layton Smith. So
now to the book The Green Murder, A life sentence
of net zero with No Parole by Ian Plymer, And
under the chapter heading of the Wet and the Dry

(01:18:22):
subheading sea Level, which runs a number of pages, I'm
going to take I'm going to extract some parts of
it that I think are best and most relevant for
the reason for doing this in the first place. So
just run this past me again. He says, human emissions
of carbon dioxide are making the sea level rise, and
this will inundate coastal areas. This is a simple scare story,

(01:18:47):
and surely, if true, must be supported by science. However,
there are just a few little problems. This ideology assumes
that human emissions of carbon dioxide result in heating the atmosphere.
This has never been shown. It assumes that if the
atmosphere is warmer, then this will heat the oceans. The

(01:19:08):
problem is that this does not work because air has
a very low heat capacity. And water the highest heat
capacity of any solid or liquid. The oceans are heated
from above by the Sun and from below by yet
unmeasurable amounts of volcanic heat. The story then goes that
if the oceans are heated, they'll expand and sea level

(01:19:30):
will rise. A parallel story is that a warmer atmosphere
will melt ice on land and add more water to
the oceans. This story has far too many assumptions and
is demonstrably wrong. The average person might think that to
determined sea level rise or fall is simple. Surprisingly, it
is complex when we measure sea level what are we

(01:19:53):
really measuring? Throwaway lines to scare people by green activists
show that again the past and geological processes are ignored deliberately.
So those scaring people about sea level rise, such as
gri teen activist El Gore, John Kerry and Tim Flannery
purchased coastal and waterfront properties. If you live in Sydney,

(01:20:15):
go to Coloyd Beach on the Northern Beaches and eighteen
seventy five Fishermen's Hut remains exactly two meters above the
high tide level, where it was one hundred and fifty
years ago In August twenty twenty, Coloroid Beach suffered massive
erosion due to a large winter storm. This has happened
many times in the past. Then it comes to the

(01:20:38):
well known story of Fort Dennison in Sydney Harbor, which
has more than one hundred years of measurement of sea level.
Sea level has changed up and down by as much
as fifteen centimeters, and those sea level changes are cycnical.
It's easy to plot a line using the sea level
data to show that sea level has decreased over time

(01:21:01):
or has increased over time. It just depends on where
the graph starts and finishes. Gauges at Fort Denison in
Sydney Harbour show that sea level has risen and fallen
a few millimeters. If you can't measure sea level rise,
then you have a problem. The building of Fort Denison
started in eighteen forty one on Pinchgut Island to prevent

(01:21:24):
a naval attack by the Russian Navy in the Crimean War.
It was completed in eighteen fifty seven, a year after
the Crimean War finished. Moving on a little what's going on.
We have evidence that sea level has fallen over the
last four thousand years, and we have old beaches. This
stun me. We have old beaches hundreds of kilometers inland,

(01:21:47):
yet we're told that the sea level is rising. For
most of the time, sea level has been higher than now.
This is why most land masses are draped in sedimentary
rocks that were originally sediment laid down in shallow water.
Sea level is always changing, the land level is always changing.

(01:22:09):
In the past, a sea level has risen or fallen
by six hundred meters, and the land level has risen
or fallen by ten thousand meters. Some six thousand years ago,
in the peak of the current interglacial sea level was
two meters higher than now. Hobart, Adelaide, Newcastle, Brisbane, Townsville

(01:22:29):
and Cairns airports are built on tidal flats that were
covered by water six thousand years ago. Hobart, Adelaide, Newcastle, Brisbane,
Townsville and Cairns airports are built on tidal flats that
were covered by water six thousand years ago. Then, except
for a couple of exceptions, he refers to Sydney Airport
the runway in Botany Bay. Most of Sydney Airport is

(01:22:52):
also built on what were tidal flats six thousand years ago,
sea level and land level changes force shorelines to advance
and retreat. Towns have been lost to the sea by
shoreline changes. Now he's dealing with different parts of the world.
World in between some of these takes of minds. Let

(01:23:12):
us proceed. The Pacific ocean floor around the Tavalu is sinking,
giving the appearance of a sea level rise. For the
past twenty years, Tavarlu has been the symbol of sea
level rise and inundation of Pacific island nations. Tavarlu is
still there. It has not been inundated. Pacific island nations

(01:23:33):
claim that a rise in sea level and destruction of
island nations is due to Australia's coal industry. However, the
opposite is happening. Despite the sea floor sinking, hundreds of
Tavaru islands are growing, with the total land area of
Tavaralu increasing by two point nine percent over the last

(01:23:53):
four decades at a couple of sinking, which is normal
for volcanic islands. At the twoenty nineteen South Pacific Forum
in Tavaralu, Australia was berated for refusing to commit economic
suicide and its coal industry despite handing out five hundred
million dollars for climate change and sea level rise as

(01:24:15):
compensation for the region. This shows the essence of the
politics of climate change. It is a cash grab underpinned
by a lack of logic and ignorance of science. It
is a very long bow to draw to suggest that
the burning of Australian coal and not Chinese coal will
cause a rise in sea level that will affect Tavaru.

(01:24:39):
I met a loss to understand how giving away money
will stop a sea level rise. Time magazine in June
of twenty nineteen had a cover article entitled Our Sinking Planet,
featuring UN chief Antonio gutiras waste deep in water at
the Pacific island nation of Tavaru. He was the Secretary

(01:25:00):
General of the Socialist Party of Portugal nineteen ninety nine
to two thousand and five. He claimed that Tavaru was
one of the world's most vulnerable country to global warming.
His narrative is that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive
global warming, that the global warming is melting the ice
caps and causing sea level rise, and that Pacific nations

(01:25:22):
are being inundated. Every single aspect of this narrative is
scientifically wrong. It has never been shown that human emissions
of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Ice melting and sea
level rise are very complex and are not only related
to warming, and are not only related to warming. Charles

(01:25:45):
Darwin in eighteen forty two showed that Pacific island adols
grow with a sea level rise. Recent studies have shown
that the Pacific island nations have grown in size, and
some ninety percent of coral atols are either stable or
have increased in size. This is the validation process of
science at work. There is still a lot that we

(01:26:06):
don't know exacts. There is a relationship between sea level
and solar activity, and a lag between solar activity and
sea level. It's not possible to discuss sea level unless
it incorporates a discussion of land level. Land levels rise
and fall as quickly as sea levels. If ever, you're

(01:26:26):
asked whether sea level is rising, the only answer a thoughtful,
well read person can give is ask me again in
a few thousand years. Meetings, treaties, agreements, laws, and gifting
billions to the UN cannot change sea level. Even the

(01:26:46):
worst case sea level rise predictions by the IPCC and
others a little different from normal post glacial sea level change,
and he then moves on to reefs, which is relevant
as well to this discussion, but the point being that
that is the closest I can get to answering the

(01:27:07):
question that was asked of me by Murray about the
Solomon Islands. And the point is, as far as I'm concerned,
is that you take from what Ian Plymer has said
sea level rises and falls, land level rises and falls.
It happens at different times in different places, and there

(01:27:30):
is no reason why the supposed sea level rise in
the Solomon Islands isn't the result of something else afoot. Now,
if anybody wants to disagree with that, let me know.
I'd be very happy to engage. But I think that
gives us, without direct connection to the Solomons, gives us
a pretty good idea of what the situation is and

(01:27:53):
why it should not be any different in different parts
of the Pacific. And with that we will leave you
for a podcast to double eight. I think I shall
now go and do a little more reading on Romania
and decide where we might go visit on a forthcoming trip,
which is not yet in the diary, but it will

(01:28:14):
be so if you would like to write to us
Latent at newstalks AB dot co dot Nz, Carolyn at
newstalksb dot co dot nz. We love your mail, Go
for it and we shall return very shortly with podcasts.
What Are We two eighty nine? Until then, thank you
for listening and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:28:41):
Thank you for more from News Talks ed B. Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio