In my Commentary published on 18 November I suggested the handling of the Bourke St incident indicated serious deficiencies. This has been confirmed by developments since then.

Most important has been the statement by Victorian Attorney General Pakula that Victorian police had not received information from federal sources which would warrant them acting to at least monitor the now dead Muslim terrorist, Shire Ali. But Victorian police chief Ashton subsequently announced that they had in fact received the necessary federal information. This prompted me to send a letter to the press arguing that Pakula should resign but, as he has stuck to his guns and has been supported by Victorian Premier Andrews, that won’t happen a couple of days before the election (see OZ on Bourke St Terrorist Revelationsand Pakula Claims Not Informed of Terrorists Passport Withdrawal).

My letter was published in today’s Australian (see below)  and the Herald Sun published a slightly different version

Fix terror tracking

The Australian, Letters, November 21

Following the killing of Sisto Malaspina by terrorist Hassan Khalif Shire Ali and the many questions about the performance of security, police services and Victorian ministers, three men have now been arrested over another alleged terrorist plot (“Melbourne terror raids: three men charged over plot designed for ‘maximum casualties’”, 20/11).

While the capacity of protective services to prevent terrorism is limited, it must be given top priority in monitoring suspects. But despite removal of his passport, and frequent attendance at Muslim prayer bodies, Shire Ali was not.

Information about potential activists must be fully exchanged between state and federal agencies and ministers. Despite the initial denial by Victorian Attorney-General Pakula (“ASIO, Home Affairs contradict Martin Pakula on Shire Ali’s passport”, 19/11), this now appears to have been the case. This avoidance of facts, and failure to stop Shire Ali, calls for the resignation of Pakula.

Most importantly, federal and state governments need to review what appear to be serious deficiencies in arrangements for preventing terrorist activity.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Debate on this incident will doubtless continue but public attention moved yesterday to the announcement by Victorian police that three Muslims had been arrested as terrorists. It appears that these three had been planning a shooting expedition into a large crowd and their planning had been followed by police for some months despite their use of encryptions (see Objectives of Three Terrorists). Note that they were influenced by“Anwar al-­Awlaki, a Yemeni-American ­cleric who was killed in a drone ­attack and whose hate sermons inspired two of America’s worst terror attacks: the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida, and the San Bernardino shooting”.

The report also reveals that “­Armagan Eriklioglu, the father of two brothers in the alleged terror cell, posted a link to a Turkish-language Islamic State Facebook –account”. He was not arrested yesterday and the report says he “is not suspected of being part of his sons’ alleged plans”, which seems surprising.

It is possible that this decision by Victorian police to arrest three was timed in order to demonstrate their efficiency (sic) after their poor performance in handling Shire Ali!

As to encryptions, Home Affairs Minister Dutton took the opportunity to call for “the Intelligence Committee today within the parliament to return their advice back to parliament very quickly because this is legislation the government needs to deal with very quickly,” he told reporters. “We have a bill before the parliament that provides the appropriate safety mechanisms, the privacy protections in place, but it allows police and ASIO to do their jobs in relation to these terrorist investigations”. “Mr Shorten has been opposed to this legislation but he needs to review his position as well. We are in a position of vulnerability” (see Dutton Seeks Shorten’s Support on Encryption).

Fairfax-Ipsos Poll Shows Increased Coalition Rating

The Fairfax/Ipsos poll for Nov 14-17 shows an increase in the Coalition’s rating to 48/52 TPP from 45/55 in Oct 10-13. At this level the Morrison government is at a higher rating than the Turnbull one was when he was deposed. But there is still a long way to  go for the Coalition and Morrison’s personal performance rating fell to 48 per cent from 50 per cent and his preferred PM rating also fell by a percentage point to 47.

The poll also asked pollers about their views on Energy Policy and Immigrants from Muslim countries, viz

• Main energy priority for Government is 47% for Reduce Household Bills cf with 39% for Reduce Emissions.This suggests that, once the cost of reducing emissions hits bank accounts, there is a tendency to reduce support for measures which add to living costs. If the Morrison government were to reduce the cost of emissions (and hence Household Bills) that would likely further reduce support for the mythical dangerous warming thesis.
• For views on Immigrants from Muslim countries, 47% say they should be reduced (cf 45% in previous poll) compared with 35% who voted for them to stay the same (cf 29% in previous poll). Those favouring an increase fell from 23% to 14%.  As this poll was taken before the Bourke St killing, it probably understates those who think Muslim immigrants should be reduced, as does the latest arrest of three Muslims. A more appropriate assessment would likely occur if the government were to publish an information paper on Muslim beliefs (see Fairfax-Ipso Poll Opposes Increased Muslims)

Immigration Statement by Morrison

In his so-called population speech on Monday, Morrison “floated the idea of reducing the permanent migration cap by about 30,000 people a year. This would bring the maximum permanent intake to the level to which it has fallen in the past year, despite the current cap being 190,000. The population plan will be discussed at the next meeting ­between state and federal govern­ments on December 12” (see Possible Immigration Targets).

While Labor has indicated it may support a reduction, this is a disappointing response to the many commentators who have argued for a higher reduction figure and to the decision not being made by the Federal government, which should be the policy determinant.

However, Morrison is reported as saying that “Australia will refuse to sign up to the UN’s migration pact, which has already been rejected by the US and several European countries, on the grounds it would weaken border security and undermine the annual immigration program”. He took the position that the compact is

“contrary to the ­national interest and would be used against Australia by critics of its border policies”. “I’m not going to sign up to an agreement that I believe will only be used by those who have always tried to tear our stronger border policies down”… “I experienced this first-hand back when I was responsible for stopping the boats. We must ­always decide on these issues and not have our laws undermined by outside influences” … and has a “fundamental flaw” in failing “to distinguish ­between illegal and “proper” ­migration when it came to the provision of welfare benefits” (see Australia Not Signing UN Global Migrant Pact).

Hopefully, this decision may also lead to rejecting other global agreements, such as the Paris one on climate change which is clearly not in Australia’s interests. But his statements justifying our immigration policy also need to emphasize that, while reflecting the cultural basis of our society, it is non-discriminatory. As indicated in the recent report by the Centre of Independent Studies, the social cohesion objective is an important component of immigration policy (see CIS Report on Immigration).

As expected, more information is emerging about the activity of radicalised Muslims and their relationship with the Hume Islamic Centre. The most worrying development reported today about the Bourke St terrorist, Shire Ali, is that he was on bail when the killing occurred and had a record of getting away with breaking previous bails. This information would have been available to the Victorian government and to senior police. In those circumstances Shire Ali should have been at least closely watched but there have been no reports that he was.  More details will be available tomorrow but there is no doubt that this will become a major issue in the imminent Victorian election.

Earlier today, the Fairfax press reported that the Hume centre is where (now known) terrorists have said they have attended and presumably participated in endorsing the message conveyed by the leader (this denied by the head, Sheik Omran). Now the centre is seeking to increase the number of attendees at peak periods to up to 500. Shire Ali, who killed the owner of the coffee shop in Bourke St, apparently attended the centre, although Omran denies this too – “Shire Ali, he never came here — or once in a blue moon.” Omran, who is head of the fundamentalist Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association, also makes the unbelievable claim that no radicalizations have occurred at the centre.

The only body responsible for approving or denying approval to expand seems to be the local Hume Council and the major question for considering expansion seems to be whether there would be enough car parking available in the surrounding area (see Islamic Centre Seeks Expansion). One would have thought that the Federal government should also have a say and should also be informed about any radicalizations. It is possible that Australian Federal Police/ASIO have infiltrated the centre but there should be publicly available information about the centre (and any other similar ones), just as there is for normal clubs et al.

The Australian reported today that “Islamic State-aligned groups have released fresh propaganda based on Friday’s terror attack in Bourke Street, as new data showed a high incidence of ­violent radicalism among Australians denied their passports by security agencies. Islamic State-linked Sunni Shield Media Foundation this week released posters with ­images of the Bourke Street ­attack, including one showing ­attacker Hassan Khalif Shire Ali attempting to stab a police officer. Another poster contained a photo of the utility that Shire Ali set alight during his fatal jihadi mission. ‘Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks,’ the text on the poster read”.

OZ also reports that Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton yesterday condemned the propaganda (“This demonstration shows their evil minds at work,” he said. “We will continue our efforts to counter propaganda and gather intelligence to defeat the scourge”).  Bill Shorten also did so, urging “internet providers and social media companies to remove any objectionable material which encourages terrorism.” The Opposition Leader said “We all have an obligation to ensure it is not disseminated further and doesn’t reach vulnerable young people.”

What this so-called propaganda seems aimed to do is not only to excuse the terrorist but also attract Muslims to radicalise. The phrase “Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks” used above might be subject to legal action against the person responsible for making the poster. It certainly calls for a response from the body responsible for our national security – the federal government.

The Australian has also published a considerable number of letters expressing concern at what has happened and at the apparent influence of Islam. My letter was also published, albeit in a heavily edited form, and is set out below.

It’s Chilling to See Would-Be Killers Laughing in Court

Letter Published in The Australian, 16 Nov 2018 (Square bracketed bits deleted by Ed)

“PM Morrison should be applauded for his sensible statements on [Australia’s sixth deadly] the Islamic terrorist attack which occurred in Melbourne, as should your editorial in asserting that “Islamist terrorism must be confronted, not denied” (14/11). But with a Muslim community having [, surveys suggest,] a [not in] significant proportion who support the beliefs of Muhammad in the Koran, the question is what action might be taken to limit deadly attacks.

[First, the government should publish a paper providing to Australians the extent of the beliefs of Muhammad, why they are still accepted by some today, the extent of the threat to national security, and what action is being take to minimise the threat. It should include the views of leaders of our Islamic community but should also make clear that the problem is not with ‘extremists’ as such but with interpreters of the religion itself who believe in the killing of infidels including fellow Muslims.]

The government should in cooperation with the states enhance our deficient police and intelligent analysts and take steps to access the encrypted exchanges now hidden from detection. This should include the deportation of those attempting or advocating extremist action and should require mosques and prayer centres to provide special police forces with access to what is said at meetings. [As is happening now  in European countries, additional funding should not be held back].

And Australia should seek agreement with other Judaeo-Christian countries to pursue such action on an international basis”.

The developments outlined above, and the widespread increased concern, call for a statement by the Federal Government on what additional protective measures it is considering and that it plans to publish an educative information paper about Islam .

Last Sunday’s Commentary on the killing by a Somalian (Shire Ali) in Bourke St gave the gist of  PM Morrison’s reaction that   “I am the first to protect religious freedom in this country, but it also means I must be the first to call out religious extremism,” he said. “Religious extremism takes many forms around the world, and no religion is immune from it … But here in Australia, we would be kidding ourselves if we did not call out the fact that the greatest threat of religious extremism … is the radical and dangerous ideology of extremist Islam.”

Responding yesterday to queries, Morrison said that the terrorist’s past substance abuse and alleged mental health issues are an “excuse” and that he would continue to call out extremist Islam and that this is “the elephant in the room”. He pointed out that Shire Ali’s reported marital struggles and substance abuse did not deter from the fact he was radicalised.  “I think that’s an excuse. This bloke, radicalised in Australia with extreme Islam, took a knife and cut down a fellow Australian on Bourke Street,” he told the Ten Network’s Studio 10 this morning. “I’m not going to make excuses … he was a terrorist. He was a radicalised extremist terrorist.”

He added that he had consulted with a Muslim community leader before he made the initial comments, and that commentators accusing him of “dog whistling” are making excuses for terror. “That is the same lame, old, tired excuse for not dealing with this problem as has always been served up,” he said. “I don’t believe that’s where the majority of decent, hard-working, respectable Australian Muslims are at. They want their communities to be safer” (see Terrorist Had Communicated With IS).

Today’s Australian reports that Mr Morrison has urged imams to identify “infiltrators’’ in their mosques and to be more alert for and proactive towards any signs of radicalisation. It describes the Prime Minister’s “forceful rhetoric” as aimed squarely at imams he believed were “looking the other way’’ when confronted with extremism in their mosques. Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has also called for Muslim community members to help bring potentially dangerous radicals to the attention of police. Morrison is reported as claiming that  the “active co-­operation” of Islamic leaders was required to prevent terrorism. “When you’ve got 400 people on an investigation program and 230 people with cancelled passports, there’s no way you can have active eyes on everyone,” Mr ­Morrison said. “No government can achieve that. This is about protecting their own communities, and their own religious communities’ integrity, because at some point a young person is always going to be ­vulnerable. “That’s when these infiltrators go to work. They can sniff it out and in they go. We’ve seen it time and again.”

By contrast, today’s Australian also reports Sheik Omran, the spiritual leader of the Islamic youth centre where Shire Ali ­attended prayer sessions, as ­accusing Morrison of “making the Muslim community a scapegoat to distract from the failure of police and intelligence services to prevent Friday’s attack”. Mohammed Omran, the emir of the Hume Islamic Youth Centre close to Shire Ali’s Meadow Heights home, dismissed the “bloody Prime Minister’s’’ call for imams to do more to stop Islamic extremists, saying the greatest power he had was to dial triple-0 when confronted with a threat. According to The Australian, “the HIYC, a sprawling mosque, cafe, gym and bookstore in the Melbourne suburb of ­Coolaroo, has seen a procession of jihadists and would-be terrorists through its doors, including ­domestic terror plotters and suicide bombers who killed themselves in Iraq” (see Muslim Leader’s Attack on Morrison).

Another report today confirms that Shire Ali had had contacts with Yacqub Khayre ( the man responsible for the Brighton siege last year and the murder of a receptionist) and his friends, as well as being an online friend of infamous Australian terrorist Khaled Sharrouf in 2014 (the man who posted a photo of his young son holding a severed head online in 2014) (see Ali Had Friends with Other Radicalists).

Judging by the foregoing activity of Shire Ali and his Islamic “friends” (of which more will doubtless be revealed), the anti-terrorist policies and the accommodative attitude adopted toward the Islamic community by former PM Turnbull and Victorian Premier Andrews have, even with the large increase in police and intelligent analysts, clearly been deficient. According to comments by Victorian Opposition Leader Guy,  while Premier Andrews ­ had four years to back the federal government on deportation “the government hasn’t recommended a single person for deportation in four years. Now he says this is on the agenda.” Yesterday Andrews declared the Victorian government “stands ready” to co-operate with the federal govern­ment on deportations and visas, in a break from past responses to ­federal intervention on state law and order (see Andrews Now Supports Deportation and Visas).

But policies need to extend much further into restricting statements by Muslim preachers et al endorsing all of the Koran. Freedom of religion is generally accepted but, in this day and age, it should not allow the preaching of death to believers  in other religions.An experienced analyst of the Koran, Bill Muehelenberg, argues that “the problem is not with ‘extremists’ but with the religion itself. The religion commands its followers to kill the infidel. Its founder led the way here, leaving all Muslims a perfect example of what they should do”… “The simple truth is this: if a Christian kills in the name of Christ, he does so in total opposition to the life and teachings of Christ, and the entire New Testament. However, if a Muslim kills in the name of Allah, he has full justification to do so from the life and teachings of Muhammad, from the Koran, and from the hadith and sira” (see billmuehlenberg.com/2008/11/21/jesus-muhammad-and-violence/).

As I argued in a recent Commentary, the government should publish a paper outlining the beliefs of Muhammad in the Koran, which was put together after the death of Muhammed in 632 but for which he left no records. And other new policies are also needed.

Further Downturn in Newspoll

Last Monday’s Newspoll showed a further drop in the Coalition’s polling to 54/55 on a TPP basis and a drop also in Morrison’s personal satisfaction ratio. As argued in previous Commentary, I believe this reflects Morrison’s failure to indicate policies on major issues. This view is also reflected in an editorial today’s Australian, viz

“Mr Morrison does not need to don baseball caps and give us the thumbs up to convince us he is a suburban dad. We get it. He needs to use the authority of the top job to deliver the reforms and arguments this nation needs. As a Coalition Prime Minister there must be more he wants to achieve on tax reform or energy affordability. He must be concerned about cultural issues such as our university sector rejecting a centre for Western civilisation or a Labor opponent refusing to call out Islamist terrorism. In short, Mr Morrison will win government in his own right only if he provides the central missing ingredient of this dismal past decade of politics: leadership”  (see OZ Says Morrison Needs to Deliver Basic Reforms),viz

“Mr Morrison does not need to don baseball caps and give us the thumbs up to convince us he is a suburban dad. We get it. He needs to use the authority of the top job to deliver the reforms and arguments this nation needs. As a Coalition Prime Minister there must be more he wants to achieve on tax reform or energy affordability.

He must be concerned about cultural issues such as our university sector rejecting a centre for Western civilisation or a Labor opponent refusing to call out Islamist terrorism. In short, Mr Morrison will win government in his own right only if he provides the central missing ingredient of this dismal past decade of politics: leadership”.

However, such action by Turnbull  has revealed publicly that he was not really a supporter of the traditional Liberal party but of himself and that he aimed to destroy that kind of party. The publication in the Weekend Australian of letters criticising the behaviour of both Turnbull and Bishop (see Letters Recognise Turnbull/Bishop) illustrates this and should make it easier for Morrison to discard some of the Turnbull policies even though he was party to them.

But as political editor Shanahan points out in Weekend Australian, “the atmosphere within the Liberal Party is now toxic enough to reduce Scott Morrison’s chances of electoral victory from improbable to impossible, with personal vendettas, factional payback, paranoia and delusion taking hold of a sufficient number of Liberal members to destroy the Coalition government”.

Shanahan argues that Morrison has to “sell himself to the voting public, he has to unite the Liberal Party while not giving in totally to the demands of conservatives or moderates, he has to deal with damaging claims of bullying and gender imbalance within the parliamentary party, he has to try to silence Turnbull, he has to win the Wentworth by-election, he has to prevent a High Court referral for Dutton, mollify Tony Abbott and Joyce, stop any crossing of the floor, damage Bill Shorten, lift the Liberal Party out of its lowest, longest of primary vote slump in Newspoll history and turn around Coalition support from an equal record low to a winnable position in less time than it took John Howard in 2001”.

“On the policy side he has to make up for a neglect of farmers in drought, demonstrate he can get power prices down, continue to keep the economy growing, reassure the electorate on the immigration rate and embark on infrastructure projects such as dams, rail and power generation” (see Shanahan on Morrison).

But it is on policy that Morrison is behind the ball game. Some say that as a new leader he needs to be given more time. But he has had Cabinet experience since 2015, starting under Abbott, and is well aware of the key policy issues facing the Coalition. Yet he finds it difficult to lead the policy direction in which the new government should direct itself after Turnbull.  This raises concern as to how, given the several public praises he made of Turnbull,  different he really is.

It may be leading him down different tracks. One may be to indicate that inquiries will be established rather than new policies, such as his announcement today that there will be a Royal Commission on Aged Care but without giving any terms of reference and without regard to the many inquiries that have been held on age care (see Aged Care Royal Cn). Meantime policy remains extant. Another approach may be to simply say that there are problems with certain policies but without indicating what they are. One important area here is religion, for which he has indicated he will take personal responsibility. Given that he actively follows a religion (Pentecostalism) which is Christian but unusual, and has quite a large following in Australia (about 200,000), this opens the possibility that he will not be critical of other small (for the present) religions such as Islam (early in my Commentary series he sent me a reply implying acceptance without question of Islamism).

But the most important immediate problem with policy that he has spoken about is energy policy. My previous Commentary have already drawn attention to the apparent contradiction between his policy of, on the one hand, reducing electricity prices and, on the other hand, retaining the emissions reduction and renewable increases targets. Neither he nor his Minister of Energy (Taylor) have acknowledged any contradiction and seem to be indicating that there will be some form of price control that ensures prices will be reduced. But realistically this can only happen with government intervention and/or increased subsidies, as well as agreements with the states. Yet there is no need to adhere to the Paris agreement on emissions reductions: many other countries are either not required to do so or simply allow their emissions not to reduce their economic growth to any marked extent. The latter course is the one which Australia should adopt.

Note in this regard that Opposition leader Shorten has confirmed today that Labor is supporting some form of NEG as instigated by Turnbull and Frydenberg (see Shorten Supports NEG). If Morrison was to announce marked changes in the targets set by Turnbull that would provide an opportunity to sensibly differentiate Coalition policies on energy from Labor’s and, at the same time, achieve reductions in power prices without government subsidies that would be potential vote winners. It would also eliminate the potential challenge which would likely emerge from Dutton and other so-called conservatives both inside and outside Federal Parliament if he continues with his existing energy policy.

In yesterday’s Commentary I suggested that the immediate media responses to the Summit missed two important points – Kim is no long in a closed shell and Trump has not been given adequate praise for bringing him out. The media has improved today but remains too equivocal about the prospects because very little agreed substance has emerged so far. We are left, therefore, with judgements about whether Kim and Trump will do what they say they will –and to what extent. The most readable assessment has been made by Cameron Stewart, who is posted in the US by The Australian and is well-equipped to assess Trump and other US leaders: nobody is equipped to assess Kim, of course. I am using Stewart’s article to draw attention to the main points of concern below  (see Stewart on Summit).

• De-Nuclearisation  under the agreement as is consists simply of a promise, with no details and time scale and no indication of existing nuclear (and other) weapons held by Kim or of possible outside inspectors. This goes no further than the previous “agreement” by Kim’s father and Grandfather with previous US Presidents. Trump says, however, it will begin “very, very quickly”. What if it doesn’t? Presumably Trump would call the whole thing off. He has indicated thus and, while his stature would suffer, he would be unlikely to hold back. He has also indicated publicly that he may have been wrong to trust Kim – “You never know, Right? You never know”.
  But if that happened, Kim would be left with none of the favourable promises which Trump has made, such as reduction/removal of sanctions. So it is in his interests to make a start, the more so as he has boasted on NK TV of the potential benefits. The possibility exists here that Kim will argue that he is entitled to have as many Nukes as other “small” countries (such as Israel) and Trump could agree to a debate on how many, etc. So, we could end not with denuclearisation but with a reduction and a proper inspection system. That would be an obvious improvement.
• Stoppage of war games between the US and South Korea, which has alarmed some in US congress. Trump has agreed to suspend these but would presumably re-start them if Kim makes no start on denuclearisation. In fact, it appears that Trump has stated that the US will continue training US troops with SK forces. That also means that there will be no removal of US forces from SK at present or in the immediate future.
• Removal of sanctions is pictured as for the future but Kim was encouraged to make progress to get rid of them by the specially designed film shown him by Trump near the end of the 4.5 hours meeting and displaying all the “goodies” from becoming a more capitalist economy. While it is possible that China will reduce the sanctions it imposes, the Trump ones may have as much significance.
• Critics of Trump say the form of government, and the treatment of NK’s citizens, should make mean that NK should not be the subject of negotiations by the US. But there are many members of the UN with dictatorial governments and poor treatment of citizens, albeit not as bad as NK. Venezuela sounds almost as bad.
• There are some immediate benefits to Trump and others, such as the return of POWs still held after the Korean war. And, as mentioned yesterday, if the agreement does proceed to unfold, it could provide a model for a similar agreement with Iran et al.

As Stewart says, “although sceptics may have history on their side, history can change — and there is more cause for optimism this time than in the past. The Trump-Kim summit, the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader, was the most public and dramatic thaw in relations with the US in North Korea’s history”. Malcolm Turnbull has also said that Trump deserved credit for giving peace on the Korean peninsula a “red hot go”.

More on Western Civilisation

The Charman of Ramsay Centre, John Howard, has been on 2GB Sydney supporting that body’s objectives and the NSW Premier has also taken to air with Minister Stokes with the latter pointing out “If it’s OK to have fairly commercial arrangements when it comes to the scientific environment, why’s it not OK to have a (relationship with a) centre in humanities?”(see Howard on West).

More significantly, today’s Australian carries a damaging article by a resident scholar, Michael Rubin, at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, which I attended in 1987 (see Rubin on West). He suggests that VC Schmidt’s attempt to lionize the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies is mistaken and the CAIS has made the ANU an “academic laughing stock”. In effect, its leader (and some of its visiting speakers) have dismissed concerns about repression of women in Arab countries and have promulgated ant-western and anti-Semetic policies. While denying any support for Trump, Rubin says  “The ANU is sick. The output from its Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies is a symptom. The Ramsay centre could be just the cure the ANU needs”.

Daughter Lisa Performs at Recital Hall, Tuesday June 19

I can truthfully recommend this performance by daughter Lisa with Sonya Lifschitz on Tuesday June 19 at 6.30. The program is attached and its highlight is “the infamous Bach Goldberg Variations afresh, with it’s intricate ingenuity in luminous clarity as this duo team builds a kaleidoscopic tapestry of color, rhythm and touch”.

Although the Palestinians refused to meet him, US Vice-President Pence’s visit to the Middle East and his address to Israel’s Knesset highlighted a wide range of important issues and explanations of the US’s foreign policy not previously made clear. Considerable publicity has been given to his confirmation that the US embassy will be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but his Knesset address (text here) says a lot more than that. As with such speeches, it probably includes statements of policy which may not be achievable: but Pense has made an important US foreign/defence policy statement.

In fact, the whole address is worth reading. The following summary points include many of importance, particularly in regard to US policy on Iran and what he describes as radical Islamic terrorism sponsored by that country. In effect, he is indicating that a change of government in Iran is a major US objective and that it is in the interest of Iranians that this happens. As the attached editorial in The Australian points out, the Palestinian leadership’s failed to recognise that Pence’s offers are in the interests of Palestinians (see Palestinian Reaction to Jerusalem as Capital).

• Pence  stated succinctly but firmly that “Jerusalem is Israel’s capital” and that the US embassy “will open before the end of next year”. Trump made this decision “in the best interests of peace”.
• The US “remains fully committed to achieve a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians” but it is ”not taking a position on any final status issues” in regard to Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. “The US will support a two state solution”.     
• “We strongly urge the Palestinian leadership to return to the (negotiating) table”.
• ” The United States will never compromise the safety and security of Israel”.
• Pence said  his discussions with President Al-Sissi of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan covered “the remarkable transformation that is taking place across the Middle East” and that “the winds of change can already be witnessed” there.
• Referring to Trump’s address to more than 50 nations at the Arab Islamic American Summit, Pence said “we will continue to bring the full force of our might to drive radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth”.
• “We will not relent until we hunt down and destroy ISIS at its source”
• “The United States has redirected funding from ineffective relief efforts and, for the first time, we are providing direct support to Christian and other religious minorities as they rebuild their communities”…. across the wider Middle East”.  
• ”The United States will continue to confront the leading state sponsor of terror –the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
• “The brutal regime in Iran is merely a brutal dictatorship that seeks to dominate its citizens and deny them of their most fundamental rights. History has proven, those who dominate their own people rarely stop there. And increasingly, we see Iran seeking to dominate the wider Arab world”.
• ”That dangerous regime sows chaos across the region. Last year alone… Iran devoted more than $4 billion to malign activities in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere across the region. It has supported terrorist groups that even now sit on Israel’s doorstep. And worst of all, the Iranian regime has pursued a clandestine nuclear program, and at this very hour is developing advanced ballistic missiles”.
• ”Two-and-a-half years ago, the previous administration in America signed a deal with Iran that merely delays the day when that regime can acquire a nuclear weapon. The Iran nuclear deal is a disaster, and the United States of America will no longer certify this ill-conceived agreement. At President Trump’s direction, we’re working to enact effective and lasting restraints on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs”.
• “Earlier this month, the president waived sanctions on Iran to give the Congress and our European allies time to pass stronger measures. But as President Trump made clear, this is the last time”.
• ”The United States will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon”.
• ”Just this month the United States issued tough new sanctions on Iran”.
• ”The miracle of Israel is an inspiration to the world. And the United States of America is proud to stand with Israel and her people, as allies and cherished friends”.

Threat of Turkey/US Clash in Northern Syria

The New York Times reports that on Wednesday Trump warned Turkish President Erdogan “against the growing risk of conflict between the two nations. The Turkish president, for his part, demanded that the United States end its support for Kurdish militias. The two men, both populists and unapologetic nationalists, spoke by telephone as Turkish forces attacked Kurdish militias in Syria…Trump ‘urged Turkey to exercise caution and to avoid any actions that might risk conflict between Turkish and American forces,’ the White House said in a description of the call. ‘He reiterated that both nations must focus all parties on the shared goal of achieving the lasting defeat of ISIS’, or the Islamic State” ( see Turkey in Syria & US Support for TPG).

This exchange between the two Presidents appears to partly reflect the development of  a closer relationship between Turkey and Russia (see Turkey Russian Relationship). This has encouraged Turkey to act to protect its borders from the YPG of Kurds, who with US military assistance helped fight against ISIS and who want to establish a separate State. Turkey has over 10 million Kurds but claims the YPG are “terrorists”. As part of Turkey’s cross-border operation in the Afrin region in Northern Syria, which is controlled by the Kurdish fighters, it has threatened to attack the town of Manbij (see map above), where about 2,000 US soldiers are based.

With Russia’s help, Syria’s Assad has almost freed itself from ISIS groups and this has makes it susceptible to attempts by both Turkey and YPG Kurdish groups to  establish territories in Northern Syria. The head of NATO has expressed cautious support for Turkey’s military activity  - “Turkey is one of the NATO nations that suffer the most from terrorism,” Stoltenberg said in a statement on Thursday. “All nations have the right to defend themselves, but this has to be done in a proportionate and measured way” (see Turkey Threatens Confrontation to US). However, the fact that Trump urged Erdogan to avoid conflict suggests that the US is taking an active interest in developments here and, even with only a small number of troops on the ground, it has the potential to avoid Turkey or Assad  establishing  control.

It appears that the protests in Iran have virtually ceased following deaths and many arrests by the Revolutionary Guard. However,  according to a Reuters report Supreme Leader Khamenei still felt it necessary to make a public statement that “citizens had a right to air legitimate concerns, a rare concession by a leader who usually voices clear support for security crackdowns.These concerns must be addressed. We must listen, we must hear. We must provide answers within our means”, Mr Khamenei was quoted as saying, hinting that not only the government of Rouhani, but his own clerical leadership must also respond”. “I’m not saying that they must follow up. I am also responsible. All ofus must follow up” (see Khamenie Statement 10 Jan).

That this is a similar statement to that made earlier by the elected President Rouhani might mean some form of agreement at the top to moderate governance in Iran.

It is interesting that the head of Israeli’s Mossad, Yossi Cohen, saw it appropriate to respond to Khamenie’s remarks and his accusation that the disruption in Iran is partly caused by Israel. Cohen argues that it is mainly due to a failed economic policy and adds that he “would be happy to see a meaningful revolution”.

Needless to say, if a revolution succeeded in establishing some form of democracy and ridded the existing dominant role of Islamic extremism, it could have major welcome effects in the Middle East.

Following Khameni’s remarks, Trump has announced that the US would “certify” the nuclear deal made between Iran and the US/Six European countries under Obama (a regular certification is required so as to provide an opportunity for the US/Six to check that Iran has in fact stopped the development of nuclear weapons). However, Trump qualified his certification by saying he was giving Europe and the US “a last chance” to fix “terrible flaws” in the agreement. At the same time, the US announced new sanctions, including on Iran’s head of judiciary on the ground that he was responsible for the deaths and arrests of protesters. A separate report states that the new sanctions extend to  14 Iranian officials and companies and businessmen from Iran, China and Malaysia, freezing any assets they have in the U.S. and banning Americans from doing business with them.

The Iranian foreign ministry responded by describing the sanction against the judiciary head as ” hostile action” and as having “crossed all red lines of conduct in the international community and is a violation of international law and will surely be answered by a serious reaction of the Islamic Republic.” It accused Trump of “continuing to take hostile measures against the Iranian people and repeating the threats that have failed many times” (see Iran Nuclear Deal Certified Again But Sanctions Imposed Against Judiciary Head).

As previously commented, the Turnbull government has expressed no sympathy for the Iranian protesters seeking the removal of the dictatorship run by extremist Islamists and has offered no support for the policy adopted by our US ally, let alone for the many Iranians who have left their country.  Under Trump, the US has taken a close interest in developments Iran and it is in Australia’s interests to do so too.

Climate and Energy Policies

In my Commentary last Friday I drew attention to serious questions about the basis of Australia’s carbon reduction policies and to the misleading report on Australian climate in 2017 by the BOM, whose representative (but not head) included an unjustifiable prediction that “the odds [now] favour warmer-than-average temperatures more often than in the past”. I included Richard Morgan’s advertisement in the Herald Sun titled The Next Ice Age, which points out that “model failures demonstrate the underlying theory and assumptions used are not supported by the results”.

As to incidents in global climate in 2017, the CEO of London’s  Global Warming Foundation, Benny Peiser, and respected climate analyst Matt Ridley, had an article published in the Wall St Journal pointing out that, while “the past year was filled with bad weather news”, “it has become routine for the media, politicians and activists to link “ such bad local news with climate change. However, they rightly say that “by looking at the world as a whole, and at long-term trends (climate) rather than at short-term events (weather), we can better test the claims that 2017 was an unusual weather year and that weather is getting more extreme as the world warms”. Their thesis is that “Bad Weather Is No Reason for Climate Alarm” and they say that although “on average the globe suffers some 325 catastrophic natural disasters a year, last year (through November) they were down to around 250 and “a third fewer people were killed by climate-related hazards” (see Peiser & Ridley Assess Climate in 2017).

Peiser &Ridley also quote other aspects relevant to an authoritative assessment of climate developments taking account of 2017 incidents:

• While temperatures have risen since 1990 at between 0.121 and 0.198 degrees Celsius per decade, that is at a third to two-thirds of the rate projected by the IPCC.
• Globally the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index—which measures the combined intensity and duration of these storms—is currently running 20% below its long-term average. In fact, the index for 2017 was less than half of normal cyclone activity for the Southern Hemisphere.
• Although more than 9,000 wildfires burned some 1.4 million acres across California,  the number of wildfires in California has actually been declining for 40 years. The global area burned by wildfires has also declined in recent decades.
• As for drought, a comprehensive database published in 2014 in the journal Nature found that the proportion of the world suffering from abnormally low rainfall has slightly declined since the 1980s.
• The number of major floods in natural rivers across Europe and North America has not increased in 80 years. Globally, too, floods have decreased in recent years.

Hence, while short-term weather fluctuations and extreme events rightly catch the headlines,P&R correctly say “they don’t capture the reality of the planet’s climate. Over the past several decades, the world has been getting slowly warmer, slightly wetter and less icy. It has also been no stormier, no more flood-prone and a touch less drought-prone. And sea level continues to creep slowly upward”. In short, 2017 provided no indication that we are threatened by dangerous warming.

There has been a significant development in the political situation in Iran. According to a Reuters report dated 9 Jan, “President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday young Iranian protesters were unhappy about far more than just the economy and they would no longer defer to the views and lifestyle of an aging revolutionary elite”. He is also quoted by Tasnim news agency as saying “It would be a misrepresentation (of events) and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands”… “People had economic, political and social demands.”… “We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that. It is impossible… The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours,” he said. Note also that it is reported that Rouhani said on Monday that “people should be allowed to criticize all Iranian officials, with no exception”.

These are quite remarkable words for the President of a country to make at a time of political crisis.

Of course, although elected, the President in Iran has little power. Power in Iran is with the religious head, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and appointer of the heads of the judiciary. Key ministers are also selected with his agreement and he has the ultimate say on Iran’s foreign policy. But the emergence in public of apparent different views by the two leaders confirms that the protests reflect a tense situation at the head of Iran governance. And as Rouhani’s statements would have been well circulated publicly, they would add to the pressure to change governance  (see Iranian President Criticizes Hardliners).

Some expert analysts are confidently predicting just that. A US expert on Iran who has visited it since the protests started, Edward Luttwak, argues “there is a fair chance that Donald Trump, who contradicts Barack Obama and Europe’s leaders by refusing coexistence with Iran’s ayatollah empire, will also have the satisfaction of seeing the dissolution of a regime that Obama among many others preferred to accommodate”. He claims that“with some 80 million people, and with oil accounting for 80 percent of its exports, Iran would need to export some 25 million barrels a day to make a go of it, but it can barely export 2.5 million… Iran cannot even match the $6,000 income per capita of Botswana… its citizens are not required to pay for extensive nuclear installations” …or  “support  a foreign dictator at war with 80 percent of his own population or provide generous funding for the world’s largest terrorist organization, Hezbollah, whose cocaine-smuggling networks and local extortion rackets cannot possibly cover tens of thousands of salaries. The ayatollah empire is doing all those things, which means that average Iranians are actually much poorer than their Botswanian counterparts”(see Strategic Writer Luttwak on Iran).

As to  US policy, Vice President Pence wrote on 3 February that “months before the protests started in Iran, the president predicted that the days of the Iranian regime were numbered. Speaking at the United Nations in September, he said, ‘The good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most’. Much like another president who made similar predictions about the Soviet Union, the president was mocked. These words now ring truer than ever. Where his predecessor stayed silent in 2009, Trump swiftly offered the Iranian people America’s unwavering support. He has also committed to provide assistance in the days ahead.

More broadly, the president declined to certify the previous administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, which flooded the regime’s coffers with tens of billions of dollars in cash — money that it could use to repress its own people and support terrorism across the wider world. We have already issued new sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the president is weighing additional actions to punish the regime for its belligerent behavior and assault on its own citizens.

The United States has spoken clearly and unequivocally. Unfortunately, many of our European partners, as well as the United Nations, have thus far failed to forcefully speak out on the growing crisis in Iran. It’s time for them to stand up” (see Pence Says Trump will Support Iranian Protesters).

As I have already suggested, under the Turnbull government no support has been given to the policy adopted by our US ally, let alone to the many Iranians who seek the removal of the dictatorship. It is estimated that, since the take-over by the Extremist Muslim Supreme Leader, about 7 million Iranians have left their country. They have been conducting protests in the countries in which they now live, including Australia.

Another opportunity to support the US will come if Trump refuses to certify the nuclear deal which was made by Obama along with other major European countries. The need to make that certification comes up in the very near future.

The article also suggests that there was a recent deterioration in the economic situation for most Iranians and that there was an apparent failure for them to benefit from the Obama-led decision to allow Iran access to its large $US reserves, which had previously been frozen when Iran was discovered to be developing nuclear weaponry. Officially, unemployment is at about 14% with youth unemployment about double that. But others suggest it is probably higher.

Other analysts draw attention to the increased opposition in Iran to the strict application of Islamic rules, such as the requirement for women to use hijabs and burkas. In an article in Weekend Australian, Caroline Overington argues that the protests have been “extraordinary for the bravery of women, many acting alone”  against “the brutality of Iran’s Supreme Leader”.  Overington refers to what is now a widely published picture of an Iranian woman standing on a bollard or a box who “has removed her hijab and is waving it at the end of a rod” as a part of the protest. But where, she asks, is the West? The hijab, she claims, is “not a democratic ideal” but “a symbol of repression of women in the Middle East” (See Women in Iran, Jan 6).

That is a question which Turnbull should help answer by supporting the leadership shown by US President Trump in forcing a meeting of the UN Security Council and the Europeans and Russians to expose their Iran policies there. Their difference of opinion with the US at the UN shows that country’s importance as a world leader in ensuring Western values and that it is shameful that others have held back. Australia should make it clear that it is not in that group.

The fact that Trump has been attacked in a just-published book entitled Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House should not mean that US foreign policies, such as the one above in regard to Iran, be dismissed: they should stand on their merits (or not), which in this case is laudable and important in a world exposed to extremist Islamic beliefs and policies, such as those adopted by Iran.

It might be noted that, contrary to the impression given by the news presented by the ABC and SBS, Trump’s popularity measure of about 40% (and has increased recently) in the US. That is higher than Turnbull’s Performance measure of 32% in last December’s  Newspoll. Our unemployment rate is also higher than the US’s, which recently recorded the lowest ever rate of 6.7% for black Americans.

My interpretation of the analysis by Williams is that he sees merit in a situation where terrorist groups fight each other and that, as such, they do not necessarily pose a threat to Australia or Western countries generally. He refers, for example, to Hezbollah, which is heavily supported by Iran both militarily and financially and which is treated as a terrorist organisation by the US (and some other  countries) but whose military segment is the only part so treated by Australia (and some other countries). He claims that, “from a counter-terrorism perspective, Hezbollah is a useful contact, as it is violently opposed to Islamic State”. This may be the case but the fact is that it is an active Islamic group whose objectives are contrary to Western values and, whatever segment, it should be treated as a potential threat and as a disruptive force in the Middle East in particular. It is certainly surprising that Williams is employed at the Defence Force Academy.

Analysis by the Gatestone Institute provides a more realistic picture. The analyst there argues that “Without Iranian money, Hezbollah would not exist. At least, not exist as an Iranian foreign legion, militarily engaged against Israel and in other Middle East regional conflicts. Without Iranian subsidies, Hezbollah would be just a narco-mafia”. He also argues that “Hezbollah has developed deep connections to Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, directly to facilitate the distribution of drugs throughout the Middle East and the US”.

As to the present situation in Iran, it appears that, while the government has succeeded is stopping or significantly reducing protests, the protest movement is by no means over and one report suggests that there is a leader of some of the protesters particularly in regional areas (see this article by an Irainian-American) and that there is more than one group of protesters. The fact that, after five days of protests, the government felt that is had to arrange a large number of counter-protesters to take to the streets suggests that it remains in an uncertain position (see AFP article). Similarly, it took five days for the head of the Revolutionary Guard (the supposed protective force for the Supreme Leader) to be claiming publicly that the “sedition” is over when it doesn’t seem to be.