Institute for Private Enterprise » Greg Sheridan

Border Controls; Early Election Now Likely

Des Moore — Thu, 14 Feb 2019 01:11:34 +0000

Morrison Says No Early Election – But For How Long Can He Run A Minority Government

On Tuesday I referred to Andrew Bolt’s suggestion on Sky News that the decision by Labor to push legislation through the lower House allowing asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island to “doctor” themselves to Australia for treatment without ministerial approval and, by obtaining court approval, to then “recuperate” here for a indefinite period. With the support of the Greens et al, this legislation has now passed the Senate too but, despite his strong attack on Shorten and accusation that he has broken what had seemed a bipartisan agreement on border control, Morrison has said that he will not call an early election. Even so, Bolt tonight again repeated on Sky News his advocacy of an early election by taking advantage of the policy windfall provided by Labor.

Morrison’s attack on Shorten for showing “weakness” in handling Caucus is obviously correct (as the emergence of Deputy Albanese on TV suggests) and provides a useful stick for Morrison to use and argue that, if Labor were to win the election, they would again allow border controls to be breached. Morrison has already established that up to 300 refugees have obtained the approval of doctors to be transferred to Australia (see Possible Effects of Labor Legislation on Refugeesand Bolt Says Labor’s Legislation Allows Asylum Seekers to Come To Aus). It seems likely that under Labor border controls would be eased and smugglers would again penetrate access in one way or another (see Sheridan Says Labor Shameful).

But as electorally beneficial as it would likely be, Morrison can’t rely only on using such a stick. Other policies need to be finalized and presented, including the budget.

It also remains to be seen how long he can run a minority government where there is an opposition which is able to force legislation right through Parliament and effectively change the Coalition’s policies on other matters too. There has already been a (failed) attempt today to establish a Royal Commission on some failure of access to disabilities and there will inevitably be a debate on aspects of the budget set to be presented in early April. That would provide Labor/Greens with opportunities to have amendments to the budget passed through Parliament not by the Coalition but by the Opposition.

Labor’s success in obtaining the passage of legislation on Manus/Nauran refugees has changed the management of government picture and makes it more realistic for the Coalition to think of an early election. This is not simply to take advantage of its win on border control strategy but to avoid the potential loss of control of Parliament and its own policies.

Energy Policy

I have already criticized the energy policy developed by Energy Minister Taylor particularly its retention of the targets for reducing emissions and his support for increased usage of renewable and the emergence of estimates of much higher costs for the latter than previously thought. I have also questioned the use of divestiture powers by a minister who would be doing so on the basis that he accepted advice that a company displayed “market disconduct” and was not allowing prices to fall.

Reports emerged this afternoon that, instead of voting on a bill to give effect to Taylor’s “model” (sic), Treasurer Frydenburg has announced that the divestiture power would become a component of election policies. He is reported as saying that

“Our legislation to prohibit energy market misconduct is an important reform that aims to hold the big energy companies to account and drive competition in the market and lower prices for consumers. We will be taking this policy to the election which forms our response to the ACCC inquiry into retail electricity prices. It was on the Labor Party’s watch when they were last in government that electricity prices doubled and now they are obstructing key reforms which save money for Australian families and businesses” (see Coalition Says Big Sticks Policy Now To Be Taken to The Election).

The report also makes it clear that had the government attempted to pass the bill now it would have faced major amendments from Labor. This seems to confirm that there is likely to be an early election – possibly immediately after the budget.

Election Campaign Start? No Comprehensive Coalition Policy; Cabinet Re-Shuffle Needed; Mistakes Made By Climate Warmists; Others Have Walls

Des Moore — Thu, 17 Jan 2019 03:59:31 +0000

Unofficial Election Campaign Starts – But Slowly

While Morrison says he will not attempt an early election, the New Year is seeing the re- emergence of debate on issues such as border controls. It is pointed out that, while “Labor softened its asylum-seeker policy at its national conference last month by formally endorsing doctor-ordered medical evacuations off Manus Island and Nauru, it remains committed to boat turnbacks when safe to do so, offshore processing and regional resettlement.” But Morrison claims “they will abolish temporary protections visas and last year voted to end offshore processing as we know it in the parliament. And they had no clue what they had done’’ (see Dispute over OZ Border Policy).

However, the most “issues-attention” has been given by Treasurer Frydenberg and Home Affairs Minister Dutton and there is no sign yet of a more comprehensive presentation of Coalition policies even though Turnbull has gone and he seems to receive less media coverage. The decision by Morrison to make the present official visit to Vanuatu and Fiji is obviously driven mainly by the increasing attention being given by the Chinese to Pacific Islands. But the development of a comprehensive Coalition policy seems more important and the Foreign Affairs Minister should be able to handle the Pacific Islands. True, a more knowledgeable/presentable person than Payne could be useful (she was initially appointed by Morrison after Bishop resigned). Indeed, it would be desirable to have a major re-shuffle of Cabinet before the election, including the re-appointment of Abbott and Abetz.

An important election issue has emerged from the revelation in an OECD report that Australia relies on revenue from company taxes for 16 per cent of budget revenue, which is the highest share in the advanced world and compares with an advanced nation average of 9 per cent. As David Uren points out, “the failure of the Turnbull government to break the Senate gridlock last year to legislate a phased reduction in the company tax rate for big businesses to 25 per cent has left Australia among a group of 18 nations with a standard company tax rate of at least 30 per cent, nearly all of them developing nations” (see Australia Has High Company Tax Rate).

Another important election issue is, of course, energy policy and the promise to reduce electricity prices. I drew attention in the 12 January Commentary to Alan Moran’s analysis showing there is scope to start doing this by effecting a reduction in government subsidies. Recent evidence of statements by warmists which have been shown to be badly wrong could also be used as a basis for justifying the moderation of Australia’s policy.

These include a survey by the UK’s The Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by a former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, from 1983-89. The incorrect warmist sayings are summarized below for each month of 2018:

January 2018: Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: Study. PARIS (AFP) – Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday (Jan 17) which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions. A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet’s temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

February: ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals. The Pacific nation of Tuvalu — long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels — is actually growing in size, new research shows. A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery. It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

March: BBC forced to retract false claim about hurricanes. You may recall the above report by the BBC, which described how bad last year’s Atlantic hurricane season was, before commenting at the end: “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.” I fired off a complaint, which at first they did their best to dodge. After my refusal to accept their reply, they have now been forced to back down

April: Corals can withstand another 100-250 Years of climate change, new study. Heat-tolerant genes may spread through coral populations fast enough to give the marine creatures a tool to survive another 100-250 years of warming in our oceans.

May: Climate change causes beaches to grow by 3,660 square kilometers. Since 1984 humans have gushed forth 64% of our entire emissions from fossil fuels. (Fully 282,000 megatons of deplorable carbon “pollution”.) During this time, satellite images show that 24% of our beaches shrank, while 28% grew. Thus we can say that thanks to the carbon apocalypse there are 3,660 sq kms more global beaches now than there were thirty years ago.

June: Antarctica not losing ice, NASA researcher finds. NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.

July: National Geographic admits they were wrong about notorious starving polar bear-climate claims. The narrative behind the viral photo of a polar bear starving, reportedly thanks to climate change, has been called into question by the National Geographic photographer who took it in the first place.

August: New study shows declining risk and increasing resilience to extreme weather in France. This risk factor for French residents of cities stricken by a disaster has been falling with every passing decade.

September: Coral bleaching is a natural event that has gone on for centuries, new study. Coral bleaching has been a regular feature of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 400 years, with evidence of repeated mass events dating back to well before European settlement and the start of the industrial revolution.

October: Climate predictions could be wrong in UK and Europe. Current climate change predictions in the UK and parts of Europe may be inaccurate, a study conducted by researchers from the University of Lincoln, UK, and the University of Liège, Belgium, suggests.

November: Number and intensity of US hurricanes have remained constant since 1900. There’s been “no trend” in the number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the continental U.S. and the normalized damages caused by such storms over the past 117 years, according to a new study.

December: Alarmist sea level rise scenarios unlikely, says climate scientist Judith Curry. A catastrophic rise in sea levels is unlikely this century, with recent experience falling within the range of natural variability over the past several thousand years, according to a report on peer-reviewed studies by US climate scientist Judith Curry.

Today’s Australian also runs an article by climate expert Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer disparaging the claim still often made that 97 per cent of scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. Plimer asks “Is that really true? No. It is a zombie statistic. In the scientific circles I mix in, there is an overwhelming scepticism about human-induced climate change. Many of my colleagues claim that the mantra of human-induced global warming is the biggest scientific fraud of all time and future generations will pay dearly” (see Plimer Disparages 97% Consensus on Global Warming).

There are many other examples of errors, in some cases deliberately made by “scientists” including for reasons not actually scientific, which could be used as a basis for reducing the emissions target set in Paris by Malcolm Turnbull when PM, but who had no scientific expertise on the causes of climate change.

Another important development in this context is the establishment by climate expert Viv Forbes of a Saltbush Club to conduct a national campaign to support Australia’s immediate withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. Along with many others I have joined this club, which has now issued a press release pointing out, inter alia, that “Australia will suffer badly from the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on cheap, reliable hydro-carbon fuels such as oil, diesel, gas and coal and the backbone industries that rely on them – mining and smelting, farming, fishing, forestry, processing and manufacturing” (see EXIT PARIS AGREEMENT- Break the Climate Chains Now).

Unfortunately, Morrison has already said that Australia must stick with the Paris Agreement even though it is not binding. He has probably been heavily influenced in making this decision by advice from his department, which includes staff who are strong believers in the dangerous global warming thesis. But, one way or another, he needs in the Coalition’s interests to over-rule such advice.

US Wall Policy

In the Commentary of 12 January I argued that “the President of the US is correct in identifying an immigration problem” arising in part from the absence of adequate control on the border with Mexico and noted that Greg Sheridan took a similar view. Subsequently, Trump has “declared he will never back down from his border wall to protect Americans, paving the way for a prolonged deadlock over what is already the longest government shutdown”. This view was strengthened somewhat by “a Washington Post-ABC News poll which shows that while a majority oppose the wall, support for it has grown over the past 12 months, from 34 per cent to 42 per cent” (see Trump on Walls).

It may also be strengthened by a survey published by Breitbart showing that government agencies and prominent individuals make use of walls. The survey shows extensive photos of such walls including those constructed by Hungary, Israel and Bulgaria (on the border with Turkey) as protection against illegal migrants. The survey covers a number of prominent US politicians (including Hilary Clinton) who have opposed the funding of the Mexican wall but who have themselves used protective walls in the US (see photo of Hungary’s Border Wall).

No doubt the controversy over the wall and the partial shut-down in Washington will continue. The latest development is an attempt by Speaker Pelosi to alter the State of Union address by Trump scheduled for 29 January. It appears that her reasons for alteration are rejected even by Democrat-leaning media (see Pelosi Tries to Postpone State of Union Address).

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.

Government Policies/Advocacies

Des Moore — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:56:06 +0000

Today’s media contains reports which are of serious concern in regard to the capacity of governments and political leaders to operate or propound policies which are in the interests of communities considered as an entity rather than of particular groups. These are briefly described below and, except for two, the attachments.

Morrison Government Policies

I have already expressed some concern that the Morrison/Frydenberg government is portraying itself as too close to the Turnbull regime. This seems to be reflected in statements and policies which are now being made and/or implemented by those two. For a start, it is now reported that, instead of distinguishing his government from Turnbull’s, Morrison has in fact offered Turnbull in New York that some of his travel costs on “government business” could be met (see Turnbull’s Travel Costs Offered by Morrison). This comes on top of his acknowledgement of having frequent contact with Turnbull in NY.

And, although Morrison is attacked front page in the Fairfax press on failures (sic) to implement climate change policies or indeed to take them further (see Fairfax Attacks Morrison for Abandoning NEG), Fairfax overlooks his retention of emissions reductions and increased renewables while continuing, contradiction ally, to claim that power prices will be reduced and that he has appointed a minister to do this. No indication has been given as to what attitude the government takes to the IPCC report to be released on Sunday next and which is already reported to once again be endorsing the dangerous warming theory. This despite it being the umpteenth such report which has made incorrect temperature predictions and failed to attribute to reasons other than CO2 increases which may have caused temperature increases (see attached letter published in The Australian by expert analyst William Kininmonth on CChange).

As to the budget, the Australian’s David Uren notes that while “the Morrison government appears to have decided that budget repair is mission accomplished,

big spending decisions — the $4.6 billion fix for school funding and the $9bn fix for Western Australia’s GST — are unlikely to be offset by savings. There is still a drought package, a small business tax package and a federal election to come” (see Morrison/Frydenberg to Ease Budget Policy?). Yet while both Frydenburg and Morrison have acknowledged that new spending should be offset by savings, they do not give any undertaking of such action. Uren rightly concludes that “there should be a greater buffer against adversity in the budget before we start spending surpluses that are yet to arrive”.

As to the ABC, apart from the appointment of the very pro-ABC Ferguson as acting chair (for which there has been no explanation), Morrison seems happy that the inquiry by the Departmental head will provide a satisfactory basis for possible changes. Yet controversies continue about what actually happened to instigate the sacking of Guthrie and why Ferguson could not have been requested by the Minister for Communications to make obviously-needed changes as a condition of her appointment. In the attached article (ABC Stuck with Greenism) former Chair Maurice Newman identifies many but his reference to the failure to handle complaints (0.5% upheld !), and the rejection of an analysis by expert Meteorologist Bob Fernley-Jones, indicate the need for immediate change (and for there to be a change which would give credibility to the government).

As to foreign policy, the increased foreign activity by a China, now run by a Marxist who has “shuffled” leaders to centralized power in himself, requires much greater expressions of concern by Australia. This applies to inter alia a number of Chinese activities including in the South China sea. Defence Minister Pyne, who addressed a dinner I attended on Wednesday evening, said that Australia will be participating in an official group which will be sailing through the SC sea but did not say whether that group would accept any Chinese restrictions and what it would do if the Chinese acted as it did against a US ship (see Chinese Threaten US Warship).

Morrison’s attempt to explain that Australia has good relations with both the US and China fell short of what our foreign policy requires, which would include endorsement of US policy supporting independent nations and which recognises how important to us the US is militarily. Pyne mentioned that we have increased defence spending since the cut-backs under Labor and said the aim is to lift defence spending to 3% of GDP from the 1.9% aim in 2018-19. But we are small and the planned new subs have not yet been started and will not be ready until 2030.

This situation requires closer support of US defence/foreign policies, including the de-nuclear policies in regard to Iran, which has now attempted a bomb plot in France where the counter-government for Iran is situated (see France Threatened by Iran). The US describes Iran as “the world’s top sponsor of terrorism” and it has conducted terrorist activity in countries distant from itself. Australia should recognise and support the US policy on Iran.

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.

Summit, Debate on West Continues

Des Moore — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:58:44 +0000

Media Under-rates Summit

The media response to the Summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un has been to welcome it but express reservations because there is little of substance to date. According to The Australian, “the intentions are clear but the details are missing”; Greg Sheridan asked whether the summiteers “laboured mightily to bring forth a mouse”; and The Age asked whether it is “a game changer”. But while these are legitimate questions, as are some of the other comments (see North Korea Must not be Allowed to Deceive Again and Trump, Kim Exchange Praise at Singapore Summit), they miss the two most important points.

First, Kim has come out of the closed shell into which he and previous NK leaders put themselves to the detriment of their citizens. Now he has to face the rest of the world, and his neighbours South Korea in particular, and to improve NK’s economic and political relationships. Of course, he will still be a socialist dictatorship, but after all the publicity on NK TV there is no way he can go back to the old regime and continue to subject his citizens to dire straits because in due course he has to open his country to both emigrants and immigrants as well as allowing a much greater degree of private enterprise. And even if he does not denuclearise, he will have to stop the threats against the US and other countries and limit NK’s stockpile of nukes to those which many other countries have – and which the US and others would find it impossible to oppose as a major item of defence.

Second, even if it takes some time to develop substantive changes, Trump should be given credit for having got so far. Without his initiative, Kim might well still be in his closed shell both economically and defence-wise. To put it another way, even if no further substantive changes emerge, Trump deserves praise for bringing Kim into the open and reducing the risk of nuclear combat, which is the greatest risk facing the world. Of course, there remains the risk that Iran (which has downplayed the NK exercise) will still pose that threat and it needs to be reduced in some way. But it is possible that the NK/US summit provides a “model” which Iran will have to follow, particularly if the signatories to the Iranian nuclear deal now agree to withdraw as Trump has done or at least agree to negotiate a new deal. In a word, whichever way this develops now, Trump has further established himself as the world leader and left the Europeans further behind.

Western Civilisation Debate Continues

The latest development in this debate is that the Vice Chancellor at ANU has indicated that he would prefer not have his present salary of around $610-25 pa and will not accept his predecessor’ salary of $970-85pa. He has given no reason for this but one assumes it reflects a view about “fairness” or some other aspect of his leftish views. An incident has also developed at Melbourne University involving a contemporary dance company that divides audience along racial lines and requires whites to sign a declaration before entering the theatre. The Race Discrimination Commissioner has reacted to the effect that exempted racial discrimination in arts works!

More importantly, The Australian has published an important article by well respected Kevin Donnelly entitled “The West is lost and our unis founder in farce” (See Re: Donnelly on West). The article refers to a Boyer Lecturer, Professor Pierre Ryckmans, who recounted a story of a lecturer being attacked for talking about Chinese literati painting instead of revolutionary peasant art. As it happens, when in Canberra my wife and I met the scholarly writer and his wife and I later went a presentation given by him in Melbourne. At that presentation he argued that, for closed mind reasons which have come up in the current debate, universities should be abolished!

Note that the article refers to the number of academics opposing the Ramsay centre being established at Sydney having reached 150 (it was 100) and that the proposal is condemned as “European-supremacism writ large”.

Energy Policy under Turnbull & US Role in Syria

Des Moore — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 23:25:56 +0000

Energy Policy

My Commentary on Sunday April 1 covered many issues but, from a domestic political viewpoint, the most important was Energy Policy. Attached to that Commentary was my draft letter to The Australian about the Turnbull government’s National Energy Guarantee (NEG) that appeared to be the central component but which had not yet been explained to the electorate despite details having been promised some months ago. The draft letter also referred to the recent analysis published by three expert US climate scientists which, if accepted, would mean the abandonment of NEG.

Yesterday a slightly different version of my letter was published under a heading in The Australian “Energy Initiatives might save Turnbull government” but with a section deleted (see Letter on Turnbull Energy Policy). The complete version was as follows.

You rightly say that “If the Turnbull government can strongly prioritise affordability and reliability over climate gestures it will put a compelling choice to voters” (Editorial 4/4). Indeed, one might say that unless it so prioritises, it will lose the election and allow Labor to pursue an energy policy that would undermine our competitiveness.

The Paris Agreement is voluntary and some big emitters are effectively exempt while some others are unlikely to meet their targets. In these circumstance it is absurd to have a National Energy Guarantee policy that would provide over 40 per cent of energy for electricity from uneconomic and unreliable sources.

Analyses by three expert climate scientists recently published in the US suggest that coal usage is not only desirable economically but poses no serious threat of dangerous warming. They conclude that “rising levels of CO₂ do not obviously pose an immediate, let alone imminent, threat to the earth’s climate.”

This is reflected in the energy policy now operated by our ally, the USA. Why not in ours?

Meantime developments in the debate on energy policy seem now to have reached the point where Turnbull’s NEG is unusable politically as well as in coherent policy terms. This conclusion comes in part from an article not by an “expert” on climate but by one of Australia’s best policy journalists, Greg Sheridan. He argues that the “Turnbull government’s energy narrative has completely collapsed in a welter of indecipherable internal contradictions and ridiculous figures plucked from the air in a way that inevitably brings to mind the last days of the Gillard-Rudd years”(see Sheridan on Energy Policy).

It also comes from the announced formation of an internal division within the Coalition of a “Monash Forum” designed to promote government support for the construction of new coal-fired power stations. This group of 20 or so includes Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce and there appear to be others who have not signed up but are supportive. The new “high efficiency” coal power stations envisaged by the Monash Forum are now being extensively constructed by countries such as China and Japan and are much more costly to run than the “normal” coal power ones that could be built in Australia. But they would be much cheaper than the use of renewables proposed by Turnbull (and some State governments) as a sizeable component of NEG.

The use of “Monash” by the group reflects the fact that Sir John Monash, an outstanding Australian soldier, engineer and administrator, played a major role in developing the Victorian coal industry in the Latrobe valley. While opponents to the use of his name, which include some members of his family, argue that Monash would not have supported the objects of the group, it cannot be established that an engineer of his ability would today have opposed the use of coal rather than high-cost renewables.

The timing of the establishment of the group is, of course, related to the fact that the next Newspoll on Monday will be the 30^th. This provides a challenge to the continuation of Turnbull as leader of the Coalition in circumstances where it has been continually behind Labor in the polling and where he has been increasingly regarded as not pursuing the “small government” philosophy of the Liberal Party. It is unlikely at this late stage that he will announce on Monday next any major changes in policies, but energy policy might be a candidate.

US in Syria

It now appears that, with Russian help, Assad has re-established a form of government in most of Syria and that the Kurds are under serious threat from both Assad and Turkish forces. Their retention of a separatist role, which provided much support against ISIS, depends on the US maintaining a role in Syria with the 3,000 or so troops it has there with air support.

According to an article published by the Gatestone Institute (see US in Syria), “the rumor is spreading that Trump is about to end all American involvement in Syria and bring American military personnel back home. The result, within months or even weeks, will be the expulsion from their homes of the Syrian Kurds, who have been the most faithful allies and most sincere admirers of the United States. Such a betrayal will indelibly and permanently mar the reputation of Donald Trump, giving satisfaction to all those who claimed that this successful businessman has zero competence in politics.

The result of an American withdrawal should be blindingly obvious from recent events. Turkey has just driven 200,000 Syrian Kurds from their homes in Afrin and has announced its intention to proceed from there to Manbij. Only the presence of American military personnel in Manbij has so far deterred Turkish President Erdogan from continuing his crazy persecution of Kurds. Should American personnel be removed from Syria, Erdogan will be able to use his tanks and warplanes to revive the Turkish genocidal tradition by expelling the Syrian Kurds from their towns and villages along the entire border with Turkey. These are the same Kurds — remember Kobani? — who drove out ISIS from its Syrian “caliphate” and enabled other Syrians to regain their freedom and return to their own homes”.

As Trump has just appointed John Bolton as White House adviser on foreign policy, and Bolton had previously established the Gatestone Institute, Trump is likely to be advised to expand the US role in Syria. Such an expansion would also be important in supporting the development of more democratic government in the Middle East and in providing protection to existing governments such as Israel, which is currently under attack from terrorist groups such as Hamas. Australia should also be supporting an increased US role.