Institute for Private Enterprise » Barack Obama

US Defence & Immigration Policies; US/China Trade; OZ Energy Policy

Des Moore — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:57:09 +0000

Where Does US Defence Policy Stand Now

Trump’s sudden announcement that the US intends to “immediately withdraw” troops from Syria (and much reduced troops for Afghanistan) has caused much confusion as to US defence policy and, following the resignation of Mattis as Defence Secretary, Trump has found it difficult to get a replacement. While consistent with his election manifesto, Trump appears to have recognised that he was being too hasty and it appears he has accepted the view of National Security adviser, John Bolton, that the withdrawal be extended over a longer period and that it should first involve the elimination of IS (which Trump initially claimed had been achieved). Even so, policy uncertainty remains.

This has been increased by an address made by US Secretary of State Pompeo in Cairo, who declared the US was committed to “expel every last Iranian boot” from Syria where, in alliance with Russia, Tehran, in its drive for regional hegemony, has been propping up the murderous Assad regime. Without mentioning Mr Obama by name, Mr Pompeo heaped scorn on the former president’s “misguided” thinking on the use of military force and reluctance to call out “radical Islam”. That was a reference to Mr Obama’s preference for the term “violent extremism” when referring to Islamist terrorism and his call for an “opening towards Muslims” that would “transcend stereotypes”.

“Remember: it was here, here in this very city, another American stood before you … he told you that radical terrorism does not stem from ideology. He told you 9/11 led my country to abandon its ideals in the Middle East,” Mr Pompeo said as he argued Mr Obama had misjudged the Arab Spring uprisings. The Obama administration’s Middle East policy, he said, was an example of “what not to do”, whether in striking the nuclear deal or abandoning long-time ally Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s ruler, allowing him to be brought down by an uprising orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood” (see Pompeo on US Middle East Policy).

It is difficult to see how Pompeo’s statements can be reconciled with Trump’s.

Who Will Break the Deadlock on Mexican Wall?

The refusal by Democrat’s House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer to give Trump approval (in the House) for any finance for building the border wall with Mexico poses a challenge to Trump now facing a majority in the House. In return, Trump has refused to approve finance for a large number of federal government employees and has threatened to declare a national emergency which (it appears) would allow him to obtain indirectly finance for the wall. But Trump says he is “not yet” taking such action.

Trump has defended his position not with a tweeter but by making his first formal address from the Oval Office (see Text of Trump’s Address on Border) and has announced that he will not now attend the Davos meeting in Switzerland which purports to give major international leaders an opportunity to expound their international policies.He is also reported as actively promoting his view particularly in the south of US.

The Democrats are using the opportunity to remind people not only of their new majority position in the House but also of the problems which Trump is experiencing on implementing some of the various policies he advocates and the problems created by the partial shut-down of the federal government. However, the Democrats are not reported as addressing the illegal immigrant problem which previous Presidents have acknowledged and, in respect of which, some have supported cross Mexican border measures, albeit not one stretching across the country as Trump promised in his election manifesto.

In an editorial yesterday The Australian points out that “in 2017 the number of undocumented migrants apprehended for crossing into the US was just over 300,000, the lowest number in 46 years. In a year, however, that figure has jumped to 400,000. A Morning Consult/Politico poll shows 42 per cent of Americans believe there is a “crisis” on the border, 12 per cent perceive it as “a problem” and only 12 per cent see nothing amiss; Democratic leaders would be wise not to ignore those numbers” (see Merits in Border Security).

In short, the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem, although he should have started to do that some time ago when he had control of both houses. He did of course attempt early in his Presidency to limit immigrants from seven mainly Muslim countries and there has been an ongoing debate in the US on the extent of controls on immigrants. The increasing immigrant policy problem faced by various countries, including the development of the UK’s English Channel problem (see Migrants Attempting to Cross English Channel), may now attract more support in the US for some tightening of controls.

As Greg Sheridan points out, “it is legitimate for Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi and other Democrats to argue that Trump is proposing a bigger wall than that which they previously supported, or that they have changed their minds. What is not legitimate is to claim that Trump’s proposed wall — refashioned rhetorically now into a barrier, and to be made of steel rather than concrete — is a unique crime against the very essence of humanity and decency. And the wall or barrier or fence that Trump wants to build would certainly help control illegal immigration. So, as ever, there is a good deal of plain common sense in the Trump proposal and it is also what he promised on the election trail … In the next few days Trump will either escalate, by declaring a national emergency and using extraordinary powers — which would be ridiculous but might be effective politically — or capitulate, with some minimal face-saving compromise. In the meantime he has again succeeded in being the trapeze artist from whom no one can avert their eyes” (see Sheridan on Trump’s Wall Explanation).

The Morrison government has made no comment on this matter. Without supporting Trump’s building of the wall, it would be appropriate in circumstances where there is a general public discussion on immigration policy for Australia to indicate support of the US’s attempts to establish an effective regulatory system to control migrants. That is, of course, a potential major election issue here.

US Trade With China

An article published in the Wall St Journal reports that talks on US/China trade have resumed and that this constitutes “a show of Beijing’s seriousness”. At this stage the representatives on each side are not the most senior but the preparedness of China to engage in talks follows an agreement reached between Trump and Xi in December that the US would suspend until March tariff increases on $US200 bn of Chinese imports and thereby give the Chinese time to address what the US regards as unfair trade and economic practices (China became a member of the World Trade Organisation in 2001).

China has an enormous trade surplus with the US, with in 2017 its exports to the US amounting to $506bn and its imports from the US only $130bn (see China’s Large Trade Surplus With US). This appears to confirm that Trump has correctly threatened trade action against China not for protectionist reasons per se but because China is not conforming with WTO rules. Even so, the various aspects discussed in the attached indicate the complexity attached to any unwinding of Chinese restrictions, which extend to investment in China. As a major source for Australian exports, it is important that a satisfactory outcome be achieved.

Energy Policy

In my Commentary of 1 Jan I drew attention to the Morrison government’s decision to carry-over emissions credits obtained under the Kyoto agreements and that this meant that Australia’s emissions reduction target of 26% by 2030, as agreed by Turnbull, will in practice be much less. I also noted that, as a result, the Coalition is an even better position than it was to contrast the adverse economic effects with Labor’s much larger target of a 50% reduction by 2030.

However, there remains much that needs to be done to effect a reduction in electricity prices and the operation of the electricity market. In his analysis of the problems that still exist, climate expert Alan Moran pointed out on January 9 that the latest report by the Energy Regulator, “in line with other official analyses, hugely understated how the electricity market has been undermined by 15 years of government subsidies to the inherently low-quality supply that is wind/solar” (see The Australian Energy Regulator’s Wholesale electricity market performance report).Moran offers a disheartening conclusion as follows:

“Its analytical shortcomings aside, the report’s call for stable policy is a forlorn one. With half a dozen major Commonwealth policy direction changes since 2001 (and many others at the state level) there is zero prospect of policy stability. There never can be such stability when energy policy is inextricably tied to emission reduction policy and the targets for renewable energy vary from zero to 100 per cent”.

If the Morrison government can further moderate its energy policy, it would increase its electoral chances. But as John Roskam said last Friday in an article in the AFR “The Liberals are terrified to talk about industrial relations, they don’t have an energy policy and on questions of values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion they can’t agree among themselves on a position”. A lot of policy changes are needed.

Hollywood Bias Exposed; Trump Sticks to Troop Withrawal; Romney’s Vew

Des Moore — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 02:50:54 +0000

Media/Film Bias Continues Apace

It is widely accepted that, through its films and those acting in them, Hollywood favourably portrays the left and criticises the right. Because it has established this position over the years, most viewers/readers take account of this bias when commenting on a film and simply say no more than “well just as one expected”. But occasionally the bias is so bad that an observer feels forced to draw attention to it.

That is the case with the film “Vice”, which has just appeared and has received five stars from some film critics. But while The Australian’s Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, acknowledges that the film is “superbly made, indeed brilliant”, he portrays it as “profoundly dishonest in its treatment of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush’s vice-president.” Indeed, he rightly points out that “it has a wider cultural significance, for it demonstrates one reason it is so difficult for conservatives to prevail in Western societies. The Left has colonised and politicised much of elite and even popular arts production and uses them to project political messages. Vice is a supreme propaganda film, using all manner of sly tricks to dehumanise its villains. It is full of specific falsehoods. More generally, the innuendo and the physical mockery of its designated villains makes it manipulative and dishonourable”.

Sheridan’s comments, which are worth reading in full (see Hollywood on Cheney), reflect my own now rather hazy recollection of what happened under Bush as President and Cheney as his Vice P. I note in particular Sheridan’s comment that “Far from Bush and Cheney lying about the intelligence, they reported the same intelligence as the Clinton administration had. I confirmed this with many senior Clinton figures who had all believed Saddam had WMDs”.

Sheridan reference to the film’s “wider cultural significance” is also important. Such a well-made, five star film will be widely seen and its bias will be more accepted as fact than might otherwise be the case. One of the bias objects in “Vice” might be to pose the question of whether the Trump administration is “as poor as” the Bush one seems to be portrayed in the film. I don’t know when the film was made but the latest Pew survey published on October 1 in the US summarises the result as “Trump gets lower ratings than his predecessors in recent midterm years – Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – for being trustworthy, empathetic and well-informed. However, Trump fares comparatively well in public perceptions of his ability to get things done” (See Pew Rating on Trump).

The extent of the opposition to Trump in the US might have influenced the way the film makers presented Bush/ Cheney in “Vice”. My own perspective is that, although as Pew says “Trump Gets Negative Ratings for Many Personal Traits”, his policy decisions have made an important positive contribution to the way the US has been seen domestically and rescued it from the negative perspective which developed under Obama both domestically and here in Australia.

Trump’s Negative Perspective on Syria

In my 24 December Commentary I said that Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was sending “the wrong signal to Islamic extremists, and to those with Islamic beliefs in other countries”. An editorial in today’s Australian rightly argues that”Mr Trump failed to take into account the historical perspective of what has and has not worked in the battle against Islamist terrorism since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001”.

It also suggests that Trump has “not understood the implications for the West and Israel of recent moves that have highlighted the way Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at best a very uncertain NATO ally, is now working in lock-step over Syria’s future with Vladimir Putin, Iran and the Assad regime, with each seeking to consolidate their gains in Syria” (see Trump on Syria). It is encouraging to have such points made in a leading editorial.

The importance of continuing to draw attention to Islamic terrorist activity, and the need to respond to it, is reflected in the latest reporting of the stabbing by a “Muslim terrorist of two civilians and a police officer at a train station in Manchester. He shouted ‘Allahu akbar’ and other pro-Islam sentiments upon his arrest but the authorities have arrested him under the ‘Mental Health Act’. Thankfully they are using the counter-terror unit to investigate, but probably only because witnessed heard him shouting those Islamic sayings. Had he not uttered those sentiments, the British authorities might very well have ignored the need to investigate it as a terror attack and preferred to deal with it as a ‘mental health’ issue (see Terrorism Again in Manchester).

A detailed report of the recent murder of two Scandinavian students while hiking in the Atlas Mountains in Morocco is particularly interesting. The author, Bill Muehlenberg (an expert on Islam who is known to me), says “the horrific deaths (including decapitation) were videotaped by the Islamists and images of it were sent to parents of one of the girls. But as has now become the norm, much of the mainstream media in the West has put its own spin on the story. Thus we are once again left to get the actual facts from the alternative media. And there are several issues here which need to be addressed. The main one has to do with the nature of Islam. There is nothing unusual about these murders for the devout Muslim. It is all covered in, and approved by, the main Islamic religious texts. Beheading the infidel is simply par for the course. I document this here in some detail: billmuehlenberg.com/2014/08/27/beheading-and-islam/” (see Morocco, Muslims, Murder and Media Mischief).

Since Trump made the announced withdrawal, and the resignation of some military advisers, there have been reports that he is backtracking. However, it appears that all that he is saying is that the time of the withdrawal is not yet determined.

Romney Attacks Trump Too

The former presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who has now become a senator, has also attacked Trump “on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office” (see New Senator Romney Attacks Trump’s Character). In the attachment,Michelle Moons, who is a White House Correspondent for Breitbart News, reports that “Romney acknowledged that Trump had enacted “policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.” He praised aligning “U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors,” deregulation, cracking down on China’s “unfair” trade practices, criminal justice reform, and appointments of conservative judges.

But he went on to assail Trump’s character: “With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”

But Romney’s assail may need to be assessed against the “gaffes” he made during his presidential campaign (see Romney’s Gaffes).

Trump Succeeds in US Elections

Des Moore — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 12:28:02 +0000

Trump’s Senate Win Allows Continued Pursuit of Many Objectives

For Republicans the US mid-term elections provide a forecast increase in Senate seats to 52/48 (from 51/49) and a forecast reduction in House seats to 197/235 (from 241/194). All 435 seats in House were up for election but only 35 of the 100 Senate seats were. If the forecast loss by Republicans of 44 seats occurs in the House, that would be the smallest mid-term loss under a post war President except for Reagan’s loss of only 26 seats in 1982 ie a mid-term loss of House seats is “normal”.

The Republican win in the Senate (which one forecast puts at 56/44) should allow Trump to more readily change appointments, to prevent the threatened impeachment and to prevent the passage of leftish legislation by the Democrats. It should also allow Trump to continue to use his executive powers to pursue his more aggressive “foreign policy” than Obama, including in regard to his withdrawal from the Paris accord on the environment. However it will make difficult his proposed domestic “reforms” and make opposition more difficult in regard to proposed Democrat “reforms”, such as in health.

As might be expected, there are many reactions to the elections. But today’s editorial in The Australian seems to summarize it well, viz “While Mr Trump has lost control of the house, Republicans have bolstered their control of the Senate. Judged against the mid-term outcomes for Mr Obama and Mr Clinton, that shows he is travelling much better with voters after his first two years in office than many in the media have been prepared to concede. This is a remarkable achievement given the controversy and upheaval that constantly surrounds him, and the attacks directed at him” (see Oz Says Senate Win Important).

Sheridan actually describes this as a “very good” result for Trump and his drawing of attention to Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the Democrats for the next two years suggests that this party will continue to present its policies with limited effect. Interestingly too is that the important initiative of Trump to adopt a “fair trade” policy with China appears to have attracted little criticism. Reports suggest that this policy was little debated during the elections (see Sheridan on US Elections).

Energy Policy

While much attention has been paid to the US elections, our PM has been touring north Queensland, answering questions about his government’s policies at various functions, and providing differing slants on policies such as foreign aid. This is apparently to include the establishment of a new $2 billion infrastructure “bank” to fund projects in the region. But his justifications for such initiatives remain poor and there is still no major policy announcement. Also, there was a missed opportunity to use the dreadful treatment of a Christian woman in Pakistan to draw attention to the extent of intolerance in some Islamic countries (see Bolt Supports Asylum for Bibi).

The still confused presentation on energy policy continued in an article by Minister Taylor (see Energy Minister “Explains” Policy). In a letter published by The Australian , expert geologist Geoff Derrick points out that the minister “has done nothing to dissuade the public that he remains a shill for the renewable industry” (see OZ Letters 8/11).

Meanwhile, in the US attempts in two states to increase the usage of renewable have been defeated in polls. The opposition by “Arizonans for Affordable Electricity “said Arizonans support solar power and renewable technology, but not at the expense of an affordable, reliable energy supply. Arizonans prefer to choose our own energy future rather than have it dictated to us by out-of-state special interests.” (see Tom Steyers et al). In Washington state voters voted on initiative 1631 to introduce a carbon tax. It required 50% of voters to approve the ballot, but it failed 55% to 45%.

Morrison Active But No Major Policy Statements

Des Moore — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 12:46:04 +0000

Morrison Active But Short on Major Policy Statements

My last Commentary (4 November) was headed “How Much Longer Can Morrison Last” and suggested that he must quickly address major policy issues and stop announcing handouts mainly designed to demonstrate that he is an “active” PM. But his decision to establish a electoral promotion bus to travel around parts of Queensland has so far not produced major policy statements. Of some interest is that senior Queensland Liberal Steve Ciobo (who voted for Dutton in the leadership spill) “refused to say yesterday whether the leadership switch to Mr Morrison would help improve the government’s stocks in the state”: ‘I don’t think it serves anyone’s purpose and I also don’t think, frankly, that Queenslanders or indeed Australians more generally, care about what’s happened,’ Mr Ciobo told Sky News (see Morrison Qld Bus Tour).

There have been, and remain, opportunities to make major statements or explanations of policies.

The first relates to the US’s announcement not only of a re-imposition of sanctions against Iran but an increase compared with what they were before Obama (with help from the Europeans) announced a virtual abandonment of them. An editorial in today’s Australian points out that “Just as Scott Morrison is right to have announced an updated review of Australia’s support for the deal, so should Europe do the same”. It also quotes the assessment by Colin Rubenstein (of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council) that “Archives of smuggled Iranian intelligence documents revealed by Israel have shown that, contrary to assertions Tehran has been complying with the deal’s terms, it has pursued “a (secret) strategy of noncompliance and incomplete disclosure of its nuclear capabilities and ambitions in violation of the (deal’s) letter and spirit” (see Sanctions on Iran).

With Iran so reliant on its oil exports, and already experiencing a high unemployment rate, the US sanctions will make it increasingly difficult to continue to finance terrorist groups in the Middle East and, in particular, those groups which are a major threat to Israel and which are taking quasi-military action against residents of that country. It will also make it difficult for European countries to sustain their agreement with Obama to accept Iran’s undertaking not to develop its nuclear capacity. A statement endorsing the US announcement could be presented as, inter alia, strengthening Australia’s support of the US and its alliance with that country.

The second opportunity for Australia to make a major statement has been on immigration. In my previous Commentary I drew attention to the excellent article by Judith Sloan outlining the strong domestic support for action to reduce immigration (see Reduced Immigration a Possible Morrison Winner).

A third opportunity would be less about making a major statement than providing an indication that Australia strongly supports the announcement by Chinese President XI that it will open its economy. Inter alia, XI has just stated that “China has pursued development with the door open and succeeded in transforming a semi-closed economy into a fully open economy. Openness has become a trade mark of China. China’s door will never be closed. It will only open still wider” (see China to Open Economy). China is of course far from providing the openness which XI claims as its objective: but it is a promising development.

So too is the apparent change in Chinese attitude to Australia through its invitation to our Foreign Minister to pay an official visit to China. As Greg Sheridan points out, Australia has been prepared for some time to stomach the failure to receive such an invitation while also being “as close to the Trump administration on broad security issues, especially Indo-Pacific security issues, as any nation in the world”. While one has to see how this works out in practice, it should be officially acknowledged as being as welcome as the open economy is (see Improved Chinese Relations Reflect Trump).

Australia should also recognize that these developments in Chinese policy almost certainly at least partly reflect the response to Trump’s trade policy. The apparent inability of the World Trade Organization to ensure that China conducts a “fair trade” policy has arguably forced the US in particular to take measures which force China to adopt such a policy in its trade with the US and, in doing so, this inevitably extends to trade with other countries. This has been widely criticized as threatening a move to a “protectionist war” between countries. But it appears that the US has set itself up as a de facto WTO and that genuine protectionist policies are limited. It runs a deficit on international trade (ie imports exceed exports) of over $US50 bn a year and this has been increasing.

Interpreting the Summit

Des Moore — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 03:04:38 +0000

Some Possible Implications of the Summit

As might be expected with a meeting which lacked definitive agreements, the media (and other commentarists) containmuch speculation today about what has happened and what might now happen. The general reaction seems to be that, while NK has agreed in principle to denuke, that is no different to what his father and grandfather did and it is unlikely that much will be achieved on that side. On the Trump side there are expressions of concern that too much has been conceded unnecessarily.

My letter below, published today in The Australian with some deletions by Ed but restored below in square brackets, takes a more optimistic view under the heading used by Ed – Denuclearisation in Practice Will Demand Finesse

“What is the biggest threat to life on earth? Answer: That the crazy leader of a country with nukes will send a few off to countries he doesn’t like and millions of people will then be killed before he is. [Does this crazy person seem like the present leader of North Korea? Answer: Yes, without doubt.]

What should we do about it? First the leaders of the most important country in the word (the US with its nukes) warns him of the dangers to his country unless he denuclearises. Second, when that doesn’t work, those same leaders tell him there is a better life available for him and his fellow citizens. Third, when that doesn’t work either the current leader of the USA offers to talk to him one-on-one about the benefits from denuclearisation.

After many years of failure, this has now been done. But many don’t like the current US leader and object to what he is offering Mr Crazy, even to meeting him at all. Others would say that the current US leader has shown courage and adopted the only available course short of war.

And, as Prime Minister Turnbull said, isn’t it worth a “red hot go”, all the more so as Trump can withdraw his offer of benefits without any loss except perhaps to his status? [Well, yes and that Trump guy deserves praise.]”

But more comprehensively, Chris Kenny, has an article which gives the best analysis of both Trump and (to a lesser extent) Kim and suggests that the treatment of Trump by the media and other branches of US society (add Australia and other countries) is astray (see Kenny on Trump). This is summed up in the following extract

It is embarrassing to watch, and unhealthy for the players as well as the democracies they serve. Rather than learn anything from the Trump ascendancy they seem determined to teach their nemesis a lesson. But their vitriol can only help Trump, bringing his defiance of the media/political class into sharper focus, highlighting his achievements and ensuring his enemies are stuck in the mire of their disastrous 2016 campaign instead of thinking about how they might do better in 2020. This must be the longest dummy spit in political history.

Kenny argues that Trump has been successful because he “speaks to voters” and is “the exemplar at targeting his audience”, which “makes him a more authentic and honest communicator than other politicians” and this means that his inconsistencies are downplayed. “In other words, even though he sometimes thinks different things at different times and sometimes gets things wrong, Trump says what he thinks. There is no filter. He doesn’t care about the parsing in full carried out by journalists; he tidies up directly with the public”.

I recommend that Kenny’s article be read in full.

This is not to overlook that there are potential problems posed by Trump’s agreement with Kim and these are discussed in Sheridan’s article (see Sheridan on Trump). They include

His “contemptuous and counter-productive disregard for US alliances, his exaggerated need to personalise every issue around whether he is flattered, and his general inability to follow though anything with consistency”. But that Trump has been critical of some in alliance with the US is often justified by their failure to maintain the principles of western beliefs and they have, in fact, benefited from Trump taking back the US’s role as world leader which was lost under Obama. Trump is not the only President to differ with US alliances: Australia has differed with the US in its interpretation of what the west should do in the Vietnam War and the withdrawal from Iraq. Certainly, Trump’s handling of the recent G7 conference might have been done more diplomatically, but his actions contrast with the failure of such conferences in the past to reach any substantive agreement because they judged it best to be ‘diplomatic’;
His agreement with Kim has “been woollier and less specific than the previous (NK) ones”. But the Kim agreement to denuke has only just started and there is no indication that a nuclear (or other) attack on another country (incl SK) will not result in US assistance in some form;
His suspension of US/SK military exercises does not constitute a potential reduction in US help to SK (or other countries in the region).That suspension can be changed overnight and the US troops remain in SK and will reportedly be more active in other ways. It is far too early to see a US withdrawal from Asia;
Trump’s declaration that it is OK for China to remove some of its sanctions against NK contrasts with Trump’s National Security Strategy which identifies China as a strategic rival. Depending on what sanctions are removed this could be of concern, although it may be in response to a prior agreement with China, which appears to have helped pressure Kim to emerge from his shell. In any event Trump has not let China off the hook by his announcement yesterday that the US will put a large volume of China’s exports to the US on tariffs.
Sheridan’s quotation of the critical view by a senior George Bush official (that T doesn’t understand what alliances mean) is a surprise and fails to recognize that Trump has started, or tried to start, a new era in the (smaller) significance of alliances and has started the America First alliance.

Trade between the US and NK was not an issue at the summit, if only because about 75% of NK trade is with China. But NK trade is an issue that relates to Trump’s encouragement to NK to open its economy. More generally, with the new tariffs on imports from China coming on top of the general tariffs on steel and aluminium (with some exemptions), it appears that trade will become an increasingly important issue on Trump’s agenda. I was reminded of this by today’s report that the EU Trade Commissioner is about to visit Australia (see EU Supports Rule Based Order)

I am not up to date with Australia’s trade in agriculture with the EU but some readers of this Commentary will be aware of the Common Agriculture Policy adopted before the EU was formed by the then existing EEC (the monetary union did not start until the 1990s) . The tariffs put on agricultural imports from outside the EU, and the subsidies for EU farmers, stopped or largely reduced our exports to the EU and those exports were only “saved” by the opening up of the Japanese and (later) Chinese markets. The latest report by the EU reports that it is now exporting agri-food products of E138 bn (up 5% on last year), that it has a net trade surplus of E21bn in such products, and that assistance to farmers (ie subsidies) takes about 40 per cent of the EU Budget. Yet the attached report has her denying that European agribusiness policy is protectionist. “It is sensitive for us. I don’t think it’s correct to say we have a protectionist policy here; we reformed our common agricultural policy quite profoundly last year.’’

This is just one of the examples of why Trump is correct in claiming that existing international arrangements have adverse effects on the US (and on Australia). It is bad news that the EU TC has been working with Australia’s Ciobo to attack US trade policy. We should be helping the US where that country can legitimately claim to be unfairly treated.

ANU Programs, Abbott’s Priorities, Turnbull Wrong Again on CC, Iran Problem, Summit

Des Moore — Thu, 07 Jun 2018 13:44:28 +0000

ANU Programs Funded From Arab Money

My Commentary of 5 June suggested that the ANU should explain if programs funded by Arab money are free from attempts to persuade students of the benefits in the Koran. It appears that so far there has been no such explanation and Vice-Chancellor Schmidt has refused to interview The Australian’s rep (see ANU’s Program on Arab/Islamic Studies). However, according to The Australian report, the ANU’s Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies “has been at the forefront of contentious discussions around Middle Eastern politics and society with minimal backlash from its academics” and has received “sizeable donations from the United Arab Emirates and the governments of Iran and Turkey, frequently publishes articles supportive of a Palestine state and Iran, hosts lectures on ‘deconstructing the extremist narrative’ and ‘Islamophobia in post-communist Europe’, and has featured guest speakers who are critical of US policy”.

Even the Deputy Director of the Centre, Prof James Piscatori, has acknowledged that the clumsy handling of the question may be interpreted as “literary terrorism”.

So far, only two members of the Coalition have been reported in the media: Craig Kelly told Sky News that “They are accepting money from Iran. That’s a despotic government … that does everything to suppress academic freedoms, the freedoms of women”; and Tony Abbott also pointed out the “hypocrisy” of the union opposing the course on Western Civilisation when the university had accepted funds from Dubai, Iran and Turkey in the past. Today, however, Turnbull has indicated that he will discuss the matter with Schmidt. One wonders whether he might mention the extent to which his government funds the ANU.

Abbott’s Priorities

As it happened, Abbott had just co-launched a new relevant book by education expert, Kevin Donnelly, titled How Political Correctness is Destroying Australia; Enemies Within and Without. Fellow launcher, and top rating Radio Broadcaster, Alan Jones, praised Abbott for sticking around “as the nation confronted a crisis in leadership”. Responding to a comment by Jones that a crisis in Western political leadership and education would not have continued if Mr Abbott remained prime minister, Mr Abbott said: “I wish. What you discover in big jobs is that you don’t have all the power that you would like.I discovered, for instance, as prime minister that there were many things the government couldn’t do. It couldn’t get every aspect of its budget passed because the Senate wouldn’t let us. All too often, centre-right governments are in office but not in power.”

Asked to nominate one thing he would “fix” if prime minister again, Mr Abbott picked two.“Take the pressure off the cost of living by doing something about power prices,” he said. “The next thing you would do is scale back the rate of immigration.” (see Abbott’s Priorities).

Turnbull Wrong Again on CChange

In his tour of rural areas experiencing drought conditions, Turnbull told the farmers “There’s no doubt that our climate is getting warmer,” he said. “I don’t know many people in rural NSW that I talk to that don’t think the climate is getting drier and rainfall is becoming more volatile.” As pointed out in The Australian’s editorial, there is no evidence of increases in droughts and, as I have indicated many times, there is no co-relationship between increases in temperatures and in usage of carbon dioxide (see Turnbull Wrong Again).

In fact, the Wall St Journal has published an article by an expert in California pointing out that “while opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change as a problem, the issue has never achieved high salience among the public, despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign. Americans have consistently ranked climate change the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues on the annual Pew Research Center poll, while Gallup’s yearly survey of environmental issues typically ranks climate change far behind air and water pollution” The author suggests that “climate change as an issue is over” (see Climate Change Over as Big Issue).

Increasing Recognition of the Iran Problem (But Not By ABC)

Israeli PM Netanyahu is providing support for Trump in his announcement that the US is withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu is having head to head meetings with the leaders of three major EU countries who still adhere to it. That their Finance Ministers are seeking support for exemptions from the sanctions being imposed on Iran by Trump suggests that he may be having some affect (see Netanyahu Meets Macron on Iran Deal).

The Australian has also weighed in, arguing that the three countries should withdraw. As its editorial points out, “the deal’s boost to Iran, with $US100 billion from the US in sanctions repayments, has done much to further Tehran’s ambitions across the Middle East, propping up the Syrian regime and providing weapons and resources to Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists who want to destroy Israel. Whatever the commercial imperatives, European cosignatories cannot remain blind to the grave shortcomings of the Obama deal. They will be ill-serving the West’s strategic interests in doing so” (see New Evidence on Iran).

One might add that the Australian government should announce that it supports the US withdrawal.

AIJAC leader, Colin Rubenstein, has also complained at the failure of the ABC to provide any significant coverage of one of the most deadly recent attacks launched by Palestinian militants (who are supported by Iran/Hamas) despite more than a hundred rockets being launched indiscriminately toward Israel. As Rubenstein points out, this is only one of many failures by the ABC about the attacks on Israel and even Minister Fifield has sought an official response from the ABC.

NK Summit Supported By Kim

Reports of internal action taken by Kim indicate that the Trump/Kim summit will go ahead on June 12 ( a separate report says that a top NK official begged on his knees to have the summit !)

No Iran Nuclear Deal, Tax Cuts

Des Moore — Tue, 01 May 2018 04:17:33 +0000

As previously advised, I have been updating the people who receive my Commentary. This is now complete, although some new recipients may not wish to receive them. In that case please email me and I will delete your name. I was encouraged, however, by the number who have welcomed their inclusion. My aim is to draw attention to the need to change stated government policies from either major party (and smaller ones) where this does not appear to be in the interests of the community.

Israel’s Discovery of Secret Iranian Nuclear Policy

It is difficult to understate the importance of Israel’s “discovery” that, after in 2005 Iran signed a deal with the US (under Obama) and major European countries, it did not in fact comply with the agreed restrictions on its nuclear activity in return for the lifting of sanctions which included considerable US dollar “reserves”. The press conference by Israel PM Netanyahu and initial reactions from Trump are reported in Trump on Iran. This report appeared in my inbox at about 10 am this morning but was not mentioned on “our” ABC’s lunch time news. Another one for CEO Michelle Guthrie to explain.

Israeli PM Netanyahu told the press conference in Jerusalem that “After signing the nuclear deal in 2015, Iran intensified its efforts to hide its secret files,” he said. “In 2017 Iran moved its nuclear weapons files to a highly secret location in Tehran.” It is amazing that Mossad was able to penetrate the Iranian hiding place and then smuggle the 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs back to Israel. Netanyahu rightly describes Israel’s ability to acquire the archive as marking“a massive intelligence coup”.

The “atomic archive” was compiled by Iran with the express purpose of preserving its secretive nuclear weapons plan known as Project Amad, which aimed to “design, produce and test… five warheads, each with a 10 kiloton TNT yield, for integration on a missile.“That is like five Hiroshima bombs to be put on ballistic missiles,” asserted Netanyahu.

Netanyahu outlined Project Amad as containing five key elements described by the Times of Israel thusly: “Designing nuclear weapons, developing nuclear cores, building nuclear implosion systems, preparing nuclear tests and integrating nuclear warheads on missiles.”

Netanyahu said that in 2003, Iran shut down the version of Project Amad that existed at the time and instead divided its nuclear program into both covert and overt components. Besides archiving the material for future use, Netanyahu said Iran continued to research nuclear weapons.

The nuclear deal signed with Iran comes up for renewal in a few days and Trump has already indicated that the US will not renew the same deal but it was prepared to negotiate a different agreement. The European countries which signed the agreement indicated before the exposure of Iran that they would sign the initial agreement, but will now at the very least have to fall back to saying that the existing agreement is finished. Given Iran’s deception, they should also say they are not prepared to negotiate another deal. Such action would now also be pointless given that Iran has already secretively developed nuclear weapons.

Relevant here is the recent appointment by Trump of a new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and the appointment of Robert Bolton as a White House Adviser on foreign policy. Both had indicated a more aggressive approach by the US to handling Iran and North Korea. Significantly, Pompeo has already had discussions with Kim in NK and Netanyahu in Israel, where he stated publicly that the US is supportive of Israel. Possible results from those visits is that it was timely for Netanyahu to publicise Israel’s discovery of Iran’s deception and to have Israeli air force attack Iranian air bases in Syria, as it appears to have been doing in the past week or so.

Note also that Trump claims that the exposure of Iran’s deception will not stop the denuclearisation program of NK. Such a program may also be attempted with Iran.

Coalition’s Neglected Policies

The last Newspoll on 23 April showed a slight improvement in the Coalition’s TPP (from 48/52 to 49/51) but was followed by a report that this improvement reflected a sudden change in the allocation of preferences by the YouGov Galaxy agency. The situation has now been clarified and it shows that there has been a change in preferences last December. The table below suggests that the Coalition’s polling has improved slightly since March.

The poll next Monday will be of particular interest as it occurs the day before the budget which, according to foreshadowing by Treasurer Scott Morrison, will include personal income tax cuts over the next four years. It remains to be seen whether the apparent decision to give priority to such cuts, rather than to further reducing the deficit, is well received.

Turnbull & Policy Issues Here & O’Seas

Des Moore — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:32:32 +0000

Turnbull Survives Newspoll 30

Today’s Australian runs a Letters section titled “Newspoll is not all bad news for the Prime Minister”. Indeed! Even though it includes eight leadership quality measures showing a quite sharp deterioration in Turnbull’s assessment (see yesterday’s Commentary on web), no Liberal Party MP comes forward to challenge Turnbull (partly because he or she realises the enormous task required to undo his decisions). This suggests we face with another year or so of Turnbullism.

Energy Policy

One of Turnbull’s decisions is to establish a policy named as National Energy Guarantee (NEG). Even though this has been the subject of discussion for many months, details of how it would work have not been published by the “experts” (ESB) who have been tasked with working them out (in fact, Turnbull has made the astonishing statement that they will not simply work them out but they rather than Cabinet will actually determine what they will be). But the stated objectives are that they will result in lower prices and ensure reliability (no blackouts) and that this will all be done while meeting the government’s renewable energy and 2030 emissions targets under the Paris Agreement to which Turnbull signed Australia. Moreover, it will be done while ensuring that the use of coal-fired generators (which have to be reduced if the targets are to be met) continue to supply 60 per cent of power.

Sound like a bit of a mix up?

In fact, Judith Sloan (see Sloan on NEG) draws attention to the questioning and contradictions arising from statements being made by Treasurer Morrison, Minister Freudenberg, existing Large Retailers, and the chief regulator of supply (AEMO) in the waiting room ie while waiting for the experts to decide (when I suspect there will be more questioning). These arise from attempts to (as she says) “hitch the wagon to the Prime Minister”. He of course is the PM who has emphasised the importance of science and innovation, the results of which are being felt by Australian citizens.

US Policy in Syria

In a previous Commentary I argued that it was important for the US to maintain, even increase, its currently small role in Syria as Assad (with Russian help) resumes some governance in Syria. Although Trump then indicated the US would pull out of Syria, following the use of chemical weapons by Assad & the Russians, and Israel’s decision to bomb an airbase in Syria, he appears to have changed his mind (see OZ on Syrian Chemicalsand Israel Attacks Syrian Air Base). According to the attached editorial in The Australian, Trump responded to these developments by stating that “if President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line in The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!”. The editorial adds “He will be similarly remiss, however, if he persists in pulling out US troops from Syria and leaving it to Russia and Iran as they underpin Assad and entrench themselves in the Middle East at Washington’s expense. It would be hard to imagine a set of circumstances more demanding of strong and resolute leadership from the US and the White House”.

Bolton’s Views on US Foreign Policy

As previously mentioned, the new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, may have persuaded Trump to change his mind on the Syrian involvement. It turns out that his first official involvement at the White House was attending an emergency session of the White House National Security Council on Syria. The Syrian issue is also the first one mentioned in a Breitbart note titled “Seven Crises John Bolton Faces on Day One as National Security Adviser”. This note provides a useful summary of Bolton’s views on US national security policy and, hence, on the US’s involvement in world affairs and its potential implications for Australia. The items covered in the note include (after Syria), Tensions with Russia, North Korea, Iran Nuclear Deal, Chinese Economic and Military Policy, Israel and Terrorism.

My reading of them is that they are generally on the right track and the note is well worth reading in full. As far as I am aware, there has been no attempt yet by Australia to arrange a meeting with Bolton.

Hungary and Immigration Policy

Hungarian PM Victor Orban has won his party’s third term with an increased vote. He has been described as “far right” mainly because of his alleged restrictive policies on immigrants and refugees. The attached report (Orban Increases Hungary Votes) suggests that “Orban will likely seize on the results as vindication of his clashes with EU institutions over his hardline anti-immigration policies and rejection of the EU’s refugee resettlement program, as well as his moves to clamp down on civil society groups”. With a third victory he may soon cease to be described as “far right” and his success may encourage more attention to the cultural aspects of immigration.

So Many Questions Unanswered

Des Moore — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:41:59 +0000

Weekend Australian ran an article by former senior adviser to President George W. Bush, Karl Rove, in which, contrary to his usual practice with articles written for the Wall St Journal, he states no outright opinions and suggests no answers because it was “an especially chaotic and jam-packed week” (see Rove Asks What is Happening in the US). I have much the same feeling about developments in Australia as well as in the US, both of which leave some important questions outstanding.

US Policies

As to the US (where unanswered questions pose important issues for Australia too), Rove asks why Trump doesn’t encourage special counsel Mueller to finish his investigation into possible Russian attempts to influence the US Presidential elections. Rove’s phrasing of questions seems to imply that, although Trump was not involved in any collusion, he has made unnecessary public tweets that leave the question open. Rove also asks why Trump made a congratulatory call to Putin on his re-election as President and asks, specifically, how seriously Trump views Russia’s efforts to disrupt US democracy and assassinate defectors in the West. On this issue Rove makes no implied answer and does not make any comment on the suggestion by former CIA head, John Brennan, that Putin has information about Trump which he (Trump) does not want disclosed. Brennan, who was appointed counter-terrorism adviser and CIA head by Obama in 2013 (replaced in Jan 2017), is said to have been a “closeted” Muslim and it is not surprising that he has criticized Trump at every opportunity. But the congrats to Putin remain a bit of a mystery.

Whether Trump’s appointment of John Bolton as White House adviser on foreign policy will clarify the state of US/Russian relations is uncertain (Bolton reportedly differs with Trump on US/Russian policy), but it is an important appointment. When Bolten was US Ambassador to the UN he didn’t hold back from public statements on what was behind events which disrupted relationships and what should be done about them, including the possible use or threatened use of force by the US. In effect he favoured the US playing a stronger role to protect Western values than Obama did.

He also strongly opposed the agreement made by the US under Obama, and by European leaders, with Iran. This was supposedly designed to stop that country developing nuclear weapons and preventing it from carrying out the nuclear missile attack on Israel which it had threatened. The agreed reduction in nuclear facilities lifted nuclear-related economical sanctions, freeing up many billions of dollars in oil revenue and frozen assets. It is likely that Trump’s decision to appoint Bolton reflected, in part, his (Bolton’s) expertise and knowledge of the Iran “deal”, which is to be reviewed in May and which could lead to the US withdrawing from the agreement. But many of his views (including on free trade) are probably similar to Trump’s (the article Bolton on Foreign Policy Issueslists very briefly Bolton’s views on a range of issues) and the Turnbull government will face difficulties in deciding on whether to agree with the more “hawkish” approach on foreign/defence policy.

One US policy that is of particular interest, but has apparently received virtually no attention in America, is the support given by Trump to the attempt by the new head of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), to move out the Muslim Brotherhood from teaching and leadership positions in elementary, middle and high schools as well as colleges and universities. One expert on SA say that, “if MBS succeeds, Saudi Arabia returns to pre-1979 roots, with movie theaters, women in the workplace, and features of a modern developing country. If MBS fails, he will be killed by the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia will become more repressive than ever. The global stakes of MBS’s internal fight with the Brotherhood are large, too. If the crown price wins, nearly all Saudi funding for violent Islamic radicals ends — and if he dies, it grows to new heights”.

The visit of MBS to the United States opens a new front in its war with Iran and will influence the US’s decision on the Iran nuclear deal. It also signals a potential US policy which supports only the Sunni Muslim sect (see also Bolton’s comments on Muslims). The image Trump Meets Saudi Princeis only a photo, but it is sometimes said that a picture can tell a thousand words!

Immigration Policy

There has been considerable debate on Australia’s immigration policy, both on its extent and its composition. Some have opposed any reduction in the number of immigrants by pointing out that even the current rate of over 200,000 pa is lower proportionately than it was soon after WW11 and when our infrastructure was in relatively poor condition. But that was in a period when the majority of immigrants had Judeo- Christian values, were seeking to escape from the ruins of the destructive wars and were seen to be needed to provide Australia with a more economic basis. While for national security reasons alone we still need to expand our immigration, we have now reached a more economic level and there is less need to maintain the high earlier rates particularly in circumstances where governments are not providing adequate infrastructure. There is also significant concern at the failure of migrants from some countries to integrate with our Judeo- Christian populace but, rather, to establish themselves in separate areas and with beliefs and life styles that do not fit in and add to the cost of governance borne by others.

The debate that has emerged over the possibility of giving special treatment to immigrant white farmers from South Africa illustrate the need to recognize that we are of Judeo-Christian origin and do not have any obligation to admit people who are unlikely to fit in to our society. It would be madness to adopt the immigration policies followed in the UK and Europe, where a significant number are of Muslim beliefs and threaten to either take over the governance of the country or require the adoption of values which are inconsistent with those previously adopted. The latest French terrorist was Moroccan born and he ruthlessly shot down a policemen who offered to act as a hostage instead of the existing one held to ransom.

These issue about immigration are discussed further by John Stone ( see Stone on Immigration) and by Senator Leyonhjelm in an article on the statement last week by Home Affairs Minister Dutton suggesting that white farmers need help from a “civilized country” (see Dutton on White Farmers). The failure of Turnbull and Bishop to adequately support Dutton is little short of a disgrace and indicates the failure of the Coalition under Turnbull to retain Liberal values.

Some Important Policy Announcements

Des Moore — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:28:05 +0000

Just announced have been some important policy decisions both here and in the US.

The US changes are the most important but Shorten’s proposed changes to restore double taxation are of course most significant too (see Shorten’s Tax Breaks). This shows today’s Letters to the Editor , which include one by former Treasury Head, John Stone and are headed“An attack on hard-working savers and job creators”. I envisage that I will include further comments in due course.
As to US developments, as Andrew Bolt points out in the attached (see Bolt on Tillerson Dismissal),

“no, firing Rex Tillerson is not more reason for us to worry that a madman is on the loose in the White House. Indeed, the opposite”. He identifies the real worry by asking “will we get a sober discussion of either point? From the moment Trump campaigned to become president, our political and media class treated him as the great Satan. “Terrifying,” said Defence Industries Minister Christopher Pyne. “Barking mad in some issues,” sneered Labor leader Bill Shorten. “A security threat to Australia,” stormed Greens leader Richard Di Natale. And the media followed suit. “Donald Trump is no laughing matter,” preached The Project’s frowning Waleed Aly.

Bolt suggests that Tillerson’s replacement, the CIA boss Mike Pompeo “is more simpatico with Trump and will run Trump’s foreign policy and not the Washington elite’s. Good. Against Putin and Xi, can the West afford a US as weak as it was in those eight disastrous years of Obama?”

And it seems that Trump’s decision may have been received quite well in the US.

The US Family Research Council (FRC) said in a statement Tuesday that the nomination of Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State will enhance the administration’s goal of a return to “American values and principles” and make support for human rights and religious freedom a priority. “President Trump has been an agent of change in Washington,” said FRC president Tony Perkins in a press statement. “It is hard to identify another federal agency that is in more need of change than the State Department, which has historically and consistently been at cross purposes with American values and principles. Mike Pompeo is a proven leader, and I am very confident that he will be the desperately needed agent of change at State.” In the Christian pro-family group’s “Washington Update” Tuesday, Perkins and his staff noted that, under Rex Tillerson, the “harmful cultural imperialism” that existed during the Obama administration continued (see also more in US FRC Welcomes Pompeo Appointment).

A similar reaction occurs in this article by Colin Rubenstein, Executive Director of AIJAC, a shorter version of which was published in today’s Fairfax press.As Rubenstein says “Mr Trump is determinedly focussed at least as much on another rogue state, which probably poses an even greater threat in the longer term – Iran. Mr Trump stated, ‘When you look at the Iran deal, I thought it was terrible, he thought it was okay. I wanted to either break it or do something. He felt a little differently.’ In fact, Trump had already set a deadline of May 12 to have new international arrangements in place to deal with Iranian rogue behaviour in terms of nuclear and missile proliferation, regional aggression, terrorism and other problems”.

If the US were to succeed in suppressing Iran, that would be a most important development.

Almost as important a new appointment by Trump is the new economic adviser, Larry Kudlow who was a Reagan economist and longtime CNBC commentator. The brief article (Trump’s New Economic Adviser) says “Kudlow is best known for his advocacy of tax cuts. As an informal adviser to the Trump campaign and later the White House, Kudlow helped develop some of the ideas that became the Trump tax cut plan in 2016, which many consider the crowning achievement of Trump’s first year. Last year, Kudlow and co-author Brian Domitrovic published a book lauding the tax cuts of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Kudlow was once an advocate of relatively open immigration but changed his mind in 2015 following terrorist attacks in San Benardino and Paris. The U.S. should “seal the borders” and end all immigration and visas until the system can be made safer, Kudlow wrote.
Overall, these developments in Trump’s Presidency are most encouraging. We must hope that Australian Ministers realize this and respond favourably.