Policies on Refugee Surge Raise Serious Problems
The difficulties being experienced by refugees from Syria, Iraq and other Middle East countries in reaching Germany are not stopping the increasing attempts by individuals to take advantage of the free inflow which that country is allowing. Some are portraying Merkel as a saviour and there is pressure on other western countries to accept increased numbers.
Obama has responded to criticisms that the US is doing too little by announcing that it will take 10,000 Syrians (one wonders how the NY Times, which criticised Australia’s initial response of no net additions, have responded to Obama’s number). The US already accepts 70,000 refugees a year and the 10,000 appears to be a one-off. The report “Obama wants US to accept 10,000″ indicates that there will be strict security checks to “weed out people who are liars, who are criminals, or would be terrorists” but Obama is rightly being blamed by Republicans for failing to tackle the terrorists from IS and Assad.
It is interesting to note that, while the US is conducting air strikes against IS and has some non-combat, advisory military in Iraq, it still has almost 30,000 military in South Korea as part of its defence against a possible attack by North Korea. About 8,000 of these are combat troops. It seems strange that preference is given to troops on the ground in South Korea but not in Iraq/Syria.
Refugee advocates in Australia have also been calling for an increase in our 12,000 Syrian refugees. A meeting of 30 ethnic religious and community sector leaders with Abbott included an official representative of Shites but the Lebanese Muslim Association (the Sunnis) was not invited (see Sunnis not frozen out: Morrison). The emphasis given by Abbott to choosing “persecuted minorities” should allow most of those to be Christians but, as I have previously argued, the government and church leaders should be saying publicly that this is the major aim.
Relevant here are the reports that a high proportion of the refugees going to Germany are not (at least initially) women and children but are young men with a Muslim religion. As pointed out by Andrew Bolt on his Sunday TV program, the leftish Australian media is not showing or writing about the extent of young Muslim men going to Germany (in fact most shown on TV appear to be in remarkably good shape). With a likely follow through of bringing oldies and families, these will add significantly to the 6 million Muslims already in Germany and, according to an analysis published by a US think-tank, the Gatestone Institute, those German Muslims are heavily under the influence of an extremist group in that country. Note also that Turkish intelligence under Erdogan operates from a mosque in Cologne, apparently to keep Turks within the Islam group.
See below Germany’s Appeasement of Radical Islam. (Gatestone describes itself as a non-partisan think-tank chaired by John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN and senior State department official who has publicly expressed concern at the threat from extremist Islamic groups).
The standard treatment in Australian media is to praise Germany for its opening of doors to refugees escaping from IS and other terrorist groups. But analysis of the situation suggests that a significant proportion of the refugees may be “economic” migrants using the refugee label. The inability of governments in the EU to explain the problems with extensive differences of culture has led to many in European communities overlooking the risks of increased Islamism. Differences in immigration policies of individual countries do not help.
Yet today’s news report that Merkel said she is “convinced it was right” to have an open borders policy. But an anti-refugee open door attitude also seems to be developing with supportive demonstrations as people question the rationale and start to realise the risks. In his article published yesterday (see below A new dynamic changing the global strategic environment), Greg Sheridan argues that “Europeans are caught between two conflicting emotions: compassion , and the desire to control borders and decide who comes into their countries”. But if the problems from not controlling borders are not recognised in policy changes, there is a serious threat of a break-up of the EU and of possible forcible internal resistance in Europe.
Most Australians would also strongly object if support from open door refugee advocates here was to gain strength and force an increase in Syrian refugees. The need for a thorough checking system cannot be over-stated.
Next Saturday’s by-election is being made more difficult for the Coalition not only by the involvement of unions but by the increase in media opposition to Abbott in the Fairfax press and the ABC/SBS. It is “natural” that Labor would key off Abbott’s poor Newspoll but the Fairfax press and the ABC/SBS have extended their left views to the point where almost any possible adverse effect from (for example) the free trade agreement with China, or any critical comment on it, are blown up without attention being given to the advantages. Similarly a joke by Dutton on sea levels, made outside the meeting with Pacific Islanders but heard through a media microphone, became repeated “national news” for those news outlets because some Pacific Island leaders were invited to be critics.
One reason for this increase in anti-Abbottism is the inadequate explaining and “selling” of Coalition policies. I have argued for some time that there is a need for a wider justification of a range of policies, most notably the threat from Islamic extremism, global warming and the exercise of union power. The publication of a paper on global warming, for example, would have shown that few of the Pacific Islands have experienced increased sea levels. Swedish analyst Dr Nils-Axel Morner has published the results of over 30 year’s careful research by himself showing just that (he visited Australia some years ago). This should have been distributed to their leaders some time ago, along with a more general analysis of the dangerous warming thesis.