Institute for Private Enterprise » Iraq

US Foreign Policy, Frydenberg’s Energy Policy & Trump’s Medical Test

Des Moore — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 21:25:35 +0000

Apparent Major Change in US Foreign Policy

The US Secretary of State , Tillerson, has made a major speech in which he effectively says the US will increase its political and military roles in the Middle East.The attached report by the Washington Post (not generally supportive of Trump) says

“Tillerson listed vanquishing al-Qaeda, ousting Iran and securing a peace settlement that excludes President Bashar al-Assad as among the goals of a continued presence in Syria of about 2,000 American troops currently deployed in a Kurdish-controlled corner of northeastern Syria. His comments represented the most comprehensive and ambitious articulation of Washington’s often-contradictory policy in Syria since President Trump took office a year ago, and they underline the extent to which the war against the Islamic State has inevitably also entangled the United States in the region’s other conflicts.

“We cannot repeat the mistake of 2011, where a premature departure from Iraq allowed al-Qaeda in Iraq to survive and eventually become ISIS,” Tillerson said. But he also indicated that one of the biggest challenges of the post-Islamic State era is Iran’s enhanced role. With the Islamic State now beaten back into a small pocket of territory along the Iraq-Syria border, the United States has to address the reality that Iran’s support for Assad in Syria has given Tehran a vastly expanded reach, he said.

“Continued strategic threats to the U.S. other than ISIS persist. I am referring principally to Iran,” he said. “Iran has dramatically strengthened its presence in Syria by deploying Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops; supporting Lebanese Hezbollah; and importing proxy forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Through its position in Syria, Iran is in a stronger position to extend its track record of attacking U.S. interests, allies and personnel in the region (see Tillerson Increases US Role in Mid East).

The report does not indicate that Tillerson’s address has been approved by Trump but it seems likely that it has, at least in principle. For such a wide US involvement, however, it would also seem necessary that it has many more “troops on the ground” than the 2,000 mentioned in his speech.

The threat by Turkey to attack the Kurds, at least those which are supported by the US because they played a major role in combating IS in Syria, could prompt the US to send more troops. But the Russians appear to be supporting the Turks and they may see it as a means of undermining the NATO alliance and further reducing the US role, already much reduced under Obama (see editorial from today’s Australian Turkey’s Threat US-Backed Kurds).

The increased threat to Israel from Hezbollah and Iran may also have encouraged the US to now take a more aggressive role in the Mid East. The attached report in The Australian (see Iran Increasing Threat to Israel) says that

“ Behind a veneer of official silence, Israel appears to be responding with force inside Syria and on its borders. At the end of last year, Israel reportedly began to step up strikes on Iranian targets in Syria. An attack on a rumoured Iranian base near Damascus was attributed by several sources to Israel. Last week, according to official and opposition media in Syria, Israeli jets and ground-to-ground missiles struck an arms depot belonging to the Damascus regime.

Frydenberg Steps Up Defence of Energy Policy

The most active of Turnbull ministers during the summer break has been Energy Minister Frydenberg, who has been writing articles in support of the National Energy Guarantee policy adopted by the Turnbull government and which claims support from the business community and others even though the details of the policy have yet to be announced. Despite his publication of a number of supportive articles, Frydenberg found it also necessary to get The Australian to publish a letter criticizing an analysis by Judith Sloan in the paper which contained some critical aspects she had previously supported (see Frydenberg Letter 17 Jan). I have previously pointed out various deficiencies in the policy and those remain extant.

Relevant here is the publication in today’s Australian of a report in Nature (a journal which supports the GW thesis) suggesting that even a doubling of carbon dioxide levels is unlikely to raise temperatures to IPCC prediction rates and that other scientists have said that a doubling could produce temperature increases “as low as 1C”. Such scientists are reported as referring to other factors that have played a greater role in warming than acknowledged by climate models (see New Estimates of Alarmism Threat from CO2). The supposed dangerous warming thesis may not be so dangerous after all.

This is of course the conclusion reached by many climate analysts and is a major reason for the world-wide failure by government agencies in modelling predictions of potentially dangerous temperature levels. It is a falsie to base our new energy policies on the supposed need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions perceived as raising temperatures. Yet that is what the “experts” advising Frydenberg are doing, and he is adopting.

Trump’s Medical Report

Many commentators in the US have been searching for reasons to impeach Trump and many here have taken the view that he should not be President. But while his behaviour leaves much to be desired, there is no doubt he has opened for discussion, and taken some actions, on a number of important issues which were rejected or neglected by Obama. Even so, many of his critics have argued that he is not medically capable of fulfilling Presidential responsibilities.

That “test” has now been made and Trump has passed with flying colours. Despite the withdrawal of funding from the Breitbart group (which had Bannon as CEO), it continues to publish reports on political and defence issues. Its comments on the passing of the medical test include the following

“But now that Trump’s doctor, who was also the White House doctor for Barack Obama and George W. Bush, has announced that the president got a perfect score on a widely respected and difficult mental acuity test — a 30 out of 30 — what we have here is yet another instance where the entire mainstream media has egg all over their face after betraying the American people with lies and conspiracy theories” (see Trump Passes Medical Test).My recollection of the behaviour of Bill Clinton is that it was as bad as Trump’s.

How Long Can Turnbull Last?

Des Moore — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 03:46:45 +0000

Questionable Reactions to Newspoll

I headed my Commentary on Sunday “Are Our Politicians in the Real World? and suggested that some of the behaviour and events in Canberra and one or two other states in the last couple of weeks indicated that our political body is, like Alice in Wonderland, acting outside the real world. I added that “It would be surprising if tomorrow’s Newspoll does not show a further decline in the Coalition’s rating, which would again emphasise the need to replace Turnbull if the Coalition wants an election chance”.

That further decline has now happened, with the Coalition’s TPP down to 46/54 from 47/53 (a potential loss of 20 seats) and Turnbull’s Net Satisfaction Rate falling from minus 12 to minus 20 (the same as Shorten’s). Turnbull’s only “saving grace” was that he sustained a lead as preferred PM, albeit at a slightly reduced 10 points (43/33). According to Weekend Australian’s editorial, “this has been a terrible week for Malcolm Turnbull’s government. Tossed around like a tinny in an ocean storm, it has been incapable of steering its own course”. Political editor, Crowe, judged that “Turnbull is now in a political trough that is deeper and longer than anything predecessors such as John Howard experienced” (see Crowe on Newspoll 21 Aug).

Relevant in interpreting developments is Chris Kenny’s article in Weekend Australian suggesting that there is a “widening chasm between journalists and the mainstream, the audiences they are supposed to serve” and that “this great divide has played out dramatically of late” ie writings by most journos reflect their view of the world and/or what they think it should be like, rather than what it really is. But any increased influence by the well-known leftist media also raises the question as to why leading politicians are currently unable (or unwilling?) to play an effective leadership role. Yet Turnbull’s enunciations are so close to those coming from the ABC/SBS and suggest he is a leader who will not reflect what the “real world” polling calls for (interestingly, yesterdays news on ABC’s breakfast program did not even mention the Newspoll result).

For example, the reported criticisms on yesterday’s ABC news of the wearing of the burka in Parliament by One Nation Leader were in similar vein to Turnbull’s. Both failed to link the wearing of the burka with the serious problem that exists with what is called “extremist Islam” but which extends beyond the extremist version. They also failed to acknowledge that the wearing of the burka in public is not permitted in some countries, particularly those with a higher proportion of Muslims. My Commentary predicted that the real world was likely to lift Hanson’s polling – which it did.

But what are the implications of Newspoll for Turnbull’s leadership of the Coalition?

The surprising thing is that there has so far been no suggestion that he should be replaced before Parliament resumes in two weeks time.

Even Andrew Bolt dodged the issue by suggesting yesterday that the Turnbull government’s “grip on power is now so shaky it may be too dangerous to sack him. Sack the Prime Minister and the Liberals risk losing power within months” (see Nobody to Replace Turnbull?). So, are we to continue with a government that is “shaky” (or worse)?Bolt did not explain how a government led by Turnbull would prevent a further reduction in policy credibility over the next 18 months before the election, let alone a probable further reduction in polling as it tried to campaign for re-election (perhaps the High Court will decide that so many MPs are “illegal” under Section 44 that Turnbull has no alternative but to then call an early election!).
No editorials in today’s main newspapers even discuss the question of survival or the implications for achieving reforms in policies. Will we continue to have a government “tossed around like a tinny in an ocean storm” and incapable of steering its own course”?
Notwithstanding his reference yesterday to Turnbull being in a worse political trough than Howard, political correspondent Crowe claims today that an analysis of surveys by Newspoll shows that Turnbull has sustained his position as preferred PM and that the government has tended to hold its support in regular Newspoll surveys. But he makes no reference to what counts in an election viz the TPP (see Crowe on Turnbull 22 Aug).
In today’s AFR journalist Aaron Patrick surveys the experience of the 8 MPs who played a lead role in voting Abbott out of his PM role and notes (cautiously) that “Given Turnbull narrowly avoided defeat at last year, a defeat at the next election might prompt some political historians to argue that the Group of Eight led the Liberal Party into a terrible mistake”. However he quotes Peter Hendy (one of the eight) as saying that he is after a seat in the Senate, is “happy with the decision I made” and that “by the time we get to the election they will have a very, very high chance of winning.” (see Patrick on Turnbull 22 Aug).

Perhaps the only sensible article today is Judith Sloan’s headed “Minister should be red-faced over green schemes” (see Sloan on Energy Policy).She points out that “ The reality is that the energy market is heading for complete disaster notwithstanding all the desperate tinkering by this government” and that “ the bottom line is that countries with higher penetrations of renewable energy have higher electricity prices. It is a perfect fit. And while we may worry about the impact on households, the more important consideration is the future of businesses and the jobs they provide. It all comes down to those dastardly “green schemes”.

But would the continuation of a government, led by someone who commissioned a report on how to further reduce CO2 emissions and increase usage of renewable, be likely to effect changes which would substantially reduce vote-losing electricity prices and allow a recovery in investment in coal-fired generators?

The Message from Barcelona & N Korea

Available here is an article by John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad”. He provides an important analysis of the potential risks facing the US (and the western world generally) from recent events in N Korea and the increase in terrorist activity in (among others) Barcelona. The following extract from Bolton’s article suggests Australia and others are behind the real world in addressing potential (and actual) threats.

“North Korea is manifestly more than a Northeast Asia problem. Kim Jong Un would unhesitatingly sell any technology it possessed, including nuclear, to anyone with hard currency. Iran is one such potential customer. Terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, befriended by wealthy governments or individuals, could also be buyers. Accordingly, if the regime-change options fail, then a preemptive military strike to eliminate the North Korean and Iranian programs may well be the only way to avoid decades of nuclear blackmail by Pyongyang, Tehran and inevitably others, including the terrorist groups who might acquire weapons of mass destruction. Israel has twice before reached this conclusion, in 1981 against Iraq and in 2007 against Syria. It was not wrong to do so”.

ASIO & Fed Police Still Miss Sources of Terrorism

Des Moore — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 01:12:11 +0000

After I read on Tuesday evening that ASIO Head Lewis had said there is “absolutely no evidence” to suggest a link between the refugee intake and terrorism, I decided early yesterday morning to send a letter to The Australian expressing concern about this assertion and Lewis’s other reported assertion that he doesn’t “buy the notion the issue of Islamic extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion”. That letter has been published as the lead letter in today’s Australian, together with a number of others letters in similar vein (see below)

However, after I sent the letter to The Australian early on Wednesday morning, both the heads of ASIO and Federal Police (Colvin) sought to clarify publicly what they regard as the main sources of terrorism.

Lewis told ABC radio that the refugee program was not the source of terrorism in Australia. ‘The source is radical Sunni Islam,” he said. Asked about Man Haron Monis, who came to Australia on a business visa before successfully applying for asylum, as well as the case of Abdul Numan Haider and Farhad Jabar whose families came as refugees, Mr Lewis said: “In all of those cases they were not terrorists because they were refugees they were terrorists because of this warped violent extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam.”
Colvin told the National Press Club that the majority of persons of interest police deal with in terror investigations are first and second generation Australians. Regarding possible links between refugees and terrorism, he said he said “I absolutely concur” with what Lewis said and we can’t draw “direct cause and effect” between migration and terrorism. “What I can tell you, the majority of person of interests that come across my officers’ desks, are first and second generation Australians. These are people who are born, educated and raised in Australia. Yes, they may be from migrant families but that’s an extremely broad brush to paint in our landscape if that’s the lens we’re looking through. I think we have to be careful to draw absolutes in this discussion.” He said the main problem was “by and large” a radical interpretation of Sunni Islam.

Despite such “clarifications”, today’s editorial in The Australian’s rightly takes Lewis and relevant Ministers to task (see Australian on Lewis and note the comment that “This represents a timidity that is hard to fathom”), as does Andrew Bolt again (see Bolt on Lewis). Greg Sheridan also has an excellent short piece in The Australian pointing out that the Turnbull government “seems too often incapable of managing the politics of security” (see Sheridan on Security Policy).

Of course, some of us also have to experience the views expressed (or not) in Fairfax Press and on the ABC & SBS. Amazingly, I cannot find any reference in The Age to the comments by Lewis/Colvin and, despite the fact that it was ABC radio which interviewed Lewis, this morning’s ABC news also “forgot” (sic) to mention either of them ( a matter of the left hand not knowing what the other left hand was doing, perhaps!). The timidity occurs despite warnings of copy cat acts similar to Manchester and continuing terrorist acts, such as the death of an Australian girl in a Bangkok bombing, the death of Christian Coptics in Egypt and the extremists in Southern Philippines.

The reality is that, while refugees are not the source of terrorism, they are a major source both here and in overseas western countries because many are Muslims. Moreover, it is not only the refugees themselves who are a possible cause for concern: it is also the children they bring with them and/or who they bear after they arrive and the changes in laws or behaviour they make or seek once here. The attached article by a Pakistani journalist living in Germany (see Muslim Refugees) illustrates what can happen once a country accumulates a group of Muslims. Here is an extract from his piece:

“Newcomers soon start demanding privileges. They ask for gender segregation at work and in educational institutions; they ask for faith schools (madrasas), and demand an end to any criticism of their extremist practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM), forced marriages, child marriages and inciting hatred for other religions. They call any criticism “Islamophobia”. They seek to establish a parallel justice system such as sharia courts. They are also unlikely, on different pretexts, to support any anti-terror or anti-extremism programs. They seem to focus only on criticizing the policies of West.

It is now the responsibility of Western governments to curb this growing turbulence of religious fundamentalism. Western governments need to require “hardline” Muslims to follow the laws of the land. Extremists need to be stopped from driving civilization to a collision course before the freedoms, for which so many have worked so hard and sacrificed so much are — through indifference or political opportunism — completely abolished.

Terror attacks and other offshoots of Islamic extremism have created an atmosphere of mistrust between Europe’s natives and thousands of those who entered European countries to seek shelter.The situation is turning the Europeans against their own governments and against those advocating help for the war-torn migrants who have been arriving.Europeans are turning hostile towards the idea of freedom and peaceful coexistence; they have apparently been seeing newcomers as seeking exceptions to the rules and culture of West.

In an unprecedented shift in policy after public fury about security, the German government decided to shut down the mosque where the terrorist who rammed a truck into a shopping market in Berlin, Anis Amri, was radicalized before he committed the crime.The mosque and Islamic center at Fussilet 33 in Berlin had apparently also been radicalizing a number of other youths by convincing them to commit terror attacks in Europe and to join the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The authorities had the mosque under surveillance for a time but did not make a move before 12 innocent civilians were butchered by Amri on December 19, 2016, while leaving around 50 others injured. The police and counter terror authorities also conducted raids in 60 different German cities and searched around 190 mosques to target kingpins of another group called “The True Religion”.

Note the situation got so out of hand that even the German government decided to closed down a major mosque out of the 190 which apparently exist there. It is this kind of country we could become unless our vetting of all immigrants is greatly improved and unless their children are required to attend education based on western culture.

Finally, neither Lewis nor Colvin seem to be aware of the potential terrorist threat from Shia Muslims as well as Sunnis – or at least they fail to mention it. Iran is the main source of Shias and Trump attacked the belligerency of that country when he spoke in Saudi Arabia viz “From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms and trains terrorist, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos the region. For decades, Iran has fuelled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror”. The Hezbollah group established by Iran now controls the south of Lebanon and has stocked the area with more than 100,000 missiles which could be used to attack Israel.

Let us hope that our two heads of security are at least aware of Iran as a source of terrorism.

Trump’s Defence Policy

Des Moore — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 22:00:44 +0000

What Next in US Defence Activity?

Most commentators, including Turnbull, welcomed or approved Trump’s decision to bomb a Syrian airport from where chemical bombs are alleged to have been dumped onthe rebel held Syrian town of Khan Sheikhun. Although some claim there is no proof that Syrian President Assad made the decision to bomb, the only alternative deliverer must have been his Russian ally. Hence, one way or another the Assad government of Syria implemented or approved the bombing of the Syrian town.

This doesn’t mean that the US should have undertaken to bomb the airport: many acts of oppression against their citizens are made by governments which are not subjected to retaliations by the US or other major countries. Trump justified the action publicly because “banned” chemicals were used. It could also be seen as a rebuttal to Obama’s failure to respond to Assad’s previous use of chemicals. Trump undoubtedly saw it as an opportunity to win praise for a government that is finding it difficult to implement policies advocated during the presidential election campaign, such as reducing the extent of health insurance and immigrantsfrom Muslim countries.

The question now posed is whether any further US action will be taken against Assad or in Syria more generally. And whether other countries might become involved.

During the election campaign Trump opposed any such action but his bombing has since reversed that view. The Trump-appointed representative at the UN has also indicated a readiness to act and (amongst others) Turnbull has said that Assad will have to go if the Syrian “war” is to be stopped. Turnbull has however given no indication that he is following official US policy or that he has spoken to Trump about it.

Today’s Australian reports that the US’s national security adviser (McMaster) has said that the US will not act on its own to remove Assad (see US is not taking Assad on its own). It also reports that the US’s Secretary of State (Tillerson) has indicated the removal “would be part of an international diplomatic effort but less of a priority for the US than the defeat of Islamic State in Syria”. In another item The Australian reports that Trump has ordered a naval strike group to move to near the Korean peninsula (see Trump on N Korea) and Tillerson has indicated that a response will be made to “rogue regimes” (such as N Korea) which pose a threat to the US.

Presumably these statements are now part of official US policy, at least for the present.

Tillerson is now in Russia, whose government has opposed any move against ally Assad, is presenting an aggressive front by sending a warship offshore to Syria and is claiming that the US action is actually encouraging terrorists. This presumably refers to the terrorist groups in Syria which oppose the Assad regime and which must be assumed to control the town of Khan Skeikhun. The Russians are unlikely to readily reduce the increased role they obtained in Syria/Lebanon when Obama decided not to attack Assad and to play only a limited role in Iraq/Syria against IS, notably through the no troops on the ground strategy. But the military capacity of the Russians is limited and the US under Trump will not be easily deterred from asserting itself more actively.

Meantime, with some help from the US (including limited “special forces”) the Iraqi forces appear to be slowly pushing IS out of its apparent HQ at Mosul. And former Australian army officer, David Kilcullen, who served as a senior counter-insurgency advisor to US General Petraeus in 2007 and 2008 in Iraq and later to US Secretary of State Rice (but who was highly critical of the decision to intervene), told 7.30 last night that he thought the conflict in Syria has already spread more widely viz

“You now have a more or less permanent Kurdistan that covers most of northern Iraq and north-eastern Syria. You’ve got a vacuum from the western border of Iraq through to about the middle of Syria. As Islamic State is under pressure in Raqqa and Mosul and Iraq, it is striking out in other places like in Egypt just yesterday or today. And you’ve got the war going on in Yemen. And an expanding conflict in Libya. Most of those things are linked to the same set of causes that are driving the war in Syria… and it’s lashing out elsewhere in the region, in Libya, Egypt and Europe. Sweden and London just in the last two weeks, as a way of maintaining some initiative and trying to relieve pressure. And then it’s also a whole series of regional groups from South-East Asia all the way across to western Europe. As we see the caliphate, so-called collapsing in Iraq and Syria, we’re likely to see a spike rather than a reduction in terrorist activity outside that region” (see Kilcullen on 7.30).

This suggests that the already extended Islamic extremist activity is likely to continue whether or not the US adopts a more aggressive policy in Syria/Iraq. But it would seem from the comments above by McMaster and Tillerson in particular, and from the reduced military activity under Obama, that the US is not ready to involve itself to a greater extent in the Middle East. By contrast, Trump’s order to move a naval force to the Korean peninsula indicates he remains active internationally.

It would be wrong to expect that Trump could quickly restore the US’s traditional international role after the setbacks under Obama and in the light of the difficulties he is having in forming a new government, not to mention the media hostility he faces and his own personality defects. But it appears his major appointments in foreign and defence policy are adopting a sensible initial approach to the many problems the US faces. Trump himself is also showing signs of adopting a more balanced approach and of recognising that international relations involves more than “making a deal”. Fingers crossed.

Trump Already Having an Effect on Attitudes & Policies

Des Moore — Sun, 05 Feb 2017 00:17:10 +0000

Trump’s Executive Orders and Twitter announcements continue day by day and it is pertinent to consider their effectiveness and possible implications so far:

Job Approval ratings in US polling show a slightly higher net rate of disapproval of Trump, on average – 48.3 to 46, with more disapprovals than approvals (see attached on Polling on Trump Job Approval). But the protests shown on our TV, and the imbalance in the news, clearly exaggerate the opposition to Trump. It is probably little different to the election, albeit more aggressive. Even “our ABC” felt it had to mention support for Trump in last night’s TV news.
Despite Trump’s critical remarks about NATO, the meeting of European leaders in Malta on Feb 3 seems to have produced mixed views about Trump (see EU on Trump). The British PM (the only one to have met Trump as President) told them that the US under Trump would still cooperate on defence. The French PM, whose approval polling in France was in single figures the last time I looked, attacked Trump’s support of Brexit (but in front of May). It appears that the meeting was mainly concerned with helping Libya stop emigrants to Europe across the Meditarranean and improving controls on entry of refugees. However, the current President of the EU (actually of the Council), Tusk, thought the US is a threat to the EU!
Most comments on the exchange between Trump and Turnbull over the resettlement of refugees on Nauru and Manus Island seem to have missed the main point viz that Trump’s announced policy of implementing stronger controls over US borders meant that he could have been seen in the US as allowing a breach of that policy if he simply told Turnbull “no problem” with his agreement with Obama made at the end of Obama’s presidency. Turnbull should have immediately indicated publicly that he told Trump that Australia has a tough border control policy too. He didn’t say this publicly until he had an interview on 7.30 and he appears to have “overlooked” that, bluster aside, Trump has done him a favour in agreeing to the resettlement, subject to “extreme vetting” (which is also claimed to be what we do in our refugee policy). As Greg Sheridan points out (see attached Sheridan on Trump & Turnbull), the claim that Trump has been discourteous to Australia needs to be compared with Obama’s more than discourteous treatment of Abbott on climate policy when he was PM.
There have also been suggestions of possible policy changes by Australia as a result of Trump. One such has been that, as a quid pro quo for the resettlement, Trump may ask for Australian support on his policy of destroying ISIS (for which he has already issued an executive order). But we already have a small force in Iraq/Syria helping train Iraqi soldiers and it is difficult to believe that, if asked, we would not agree to join the US in putting “troops on the ground”. It would surely be in our interests to help destroy ISIS.
Another suggested change relates to climate policy. Turnbull has already indicated that the technology used to produce energy might be shared between renewable and coal and gas. This appears to be a policy designed to be used to attack the extent of Labor’s support for renewable but the Turnbull policy doesn’t seem to have been well put together. In particular, the reference to the possible use of “Clean Coal ” because it would have lower emissions doesn’t seem to have taken account of its much higher cost and the resultant (further) upward increase in electricity prices. Having acknowledged that coal should be a part of energy policy, it would seem desirable instead to endorse the use of “ordinary” coal until the cost of Clean Coal comes down. There is also a need to tell the states with high use of renewable and restrictions on developing gas that this is contrary to national economic policy and will result in changes to grants to offending states unless they change their policies.
There are also signs that at least some parts of the media are at last giving credibility to the sceptical view. In his article in The Australian last Friday, environment editor, Graham Lloyd, drew attention to the attendance of a number of journalists from major newspapers at a briefing in London at the UK’s sceptical think-tank ,established by former UK Treasurer Nigel Lawson, by the American Myron Ebell who was closely involved in drafting Trump’s election policy on climate policy.Lloyd points out that “ Ebell’s analysis is as relevant for Brexit as the US presidential race and provides some clues as to how debate is being fundamentally recast in other democracies, including Australia. Trump was elected President, Ebell says, largely because he figured out and supported policies that were popular in the heartland of the US, that are not those of the bicoastal elite. Energy policy is central to the divide. “The people in New York and Boston and Seattle and Los Angeles think that their lives and jobs don’t really require much energy,” Ebell says. “The people who don’t live in the areas dominated by the bicoastal urban elite, the people who dig up stuff, make stuff and grow stuff for a living are the people who have direct experience of the consequences of the policies that create higher and higher energy prices,” he says.
“California has electric rates twice the national average. The Obama strategy was to try to turn the whole of the country into something representing California or New York, where energy prices are high and where the energy-intensive industries have disappeared and gone somewhere else. “The thing is the people of California still need energy-intensive goods — they have outsourced them all.“The question is if you turn Indiana and Ohio and Michigan into replicas of California, what is going to happen to the economy of those centres when they aren’t part of a financial centre or a hi-tech Silicon Valley or they don’t have Hollywood and who is going to produce those goods?’’ Ebell says. “The answer is they will go to places in the world that still have low electric rates and have not adopted.”

This (Lloyd says) is the lesson in Victoria’s Portland aluminium smelter, which was faced with closure due to rising energy prices before state and federal government intervention. Like Trump, the federal government is putting itself on the side of the worker, whom it says Labor has abandoned with high renewable energy targets and energy costs. Ebell says Trump won the election because he appealed to those people and during the campaign he learned a lot from talking to them so his mandate is clear and he knows who he got it from.

Ebell says rejection by the American people of what they were told by the bicoastal urban elite was not an isolated phenomena and had been seen in Britain in the Brexit vote. “The people of America have rejected the expertariate and I think for good reason because I think the expertariate have been wrong about one thing after another, including climate policy,” Ebell says. “If you think the science is settled, I agree to this extent. There is a consensus and I am sure everybody who is familiar with climate science agrees with it. “There are greenhouse gases, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is increasing as a result of human activity and all things being equal there will be some warming in the climate, that is the consensus.’’

But he says people who promote the “alarmist agenda” have claimed the entire consensus goes much further. “If there is a claim that catastrophic climate change is imminent, it is based on model predictions which the facts are proving to be untrue,” he says.

It is not difficult to envisage that the kind of remarks made by Ebell will be repeated by Trump when he issues an executive order on climate policy. As Lloyd concludes in his article, “under this scenario, the Paris deal and the UN climate change process will effectively be dead and Australia’s renewable energy response will look very different indeed”. But there is no indication that the Turnbull government has prepared for such a situation.

It would be most helpful if a private entrepreneur in Australia financed a visit to Australia of Ebell or one of his colleagues who worked on the Trump environmental policy. I have a contact with one of those.

Turnbull & Trump

Des Moore — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:04:11 +0000

As we get closer to the resumption of Parliament on Tuesday 7 Feb, many have increasingly wondered what issues the Turnbull government will prioritise in the New Year and how it will react to the new Trump government in the US. In today’s Herald Sun (see below), Terry McCrann suggests that Turnbull has offered few indications of the policies he intends to pursue actively and gives the impression that he is ill prepared to handle the new policies which Trump has indicated he intends to pursue in the US. This confirms, McCrann says, what he said back last April when he wrote that “Turnbull was a complete dud”. Perhaps Turnbull will make his position clearer in his promised major address on February 1.

As regards Australia’s foreign trade policy, it is pertinent that Trump has quickly confirmed what he repeatedly said during the election that the US will not be a participant in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement (Clinton said that too). The TPP was signed in February 2016 by only 12 countries after seven years of negotiations but has not come into effect because only Japan had ratified it before Trump confirmed his position. True, the agreement contained measures to lower both non-tariff and tariff barriers to trade and was presented by all member governments as conducive to increased trade and economic growth. True also is that, along with his decision to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade agreement and his threat to offset alleged subsidization of Chinese exports, Trump is therefore widely seen as a “protectionist” and a threat to international trade generally.

But it is in reality difficult to say to what extent this is or will be the case. There are certainly some analysts who dispute that there would have been net benefits from the TPP as agreed by only 12 countries and who see the current international treatment of Chinese trade more as a political policy aimed at modernise China and open up that country’s economy and social relationships. It is also possible that, as the supposed world leader in freeing up trade, the US has accepted trade agreements or trade policies which have not been favourable to it in net terms and which the Trump would be justified in changing.

Whatever, McCrann is right in saying that the TPP is dead, buried and cremated. It was futile for the Turnbull government to have Trade Minister Ciobo apparently attempting in Washington to revive the TPP by persuading Republicans to support such a policy. Surely our government would have decided before Trump took over that it would accept a US withdrawal from the TPP given that Trump had announced such a policy early in the US election campaign? Surely too it would have recognised that any attempt to have China take the place of the US, as Turnbull has seemed to suggest is a possibility, would be unrealistic given that China was not involved in the TPP negotiations and that Australia already has a “free” trade agreement with China?

What has quickly become clear is that Trump intends to pursue the same extended policy as Obama viz wherever possible, and wherever he judges it will benefit America, he will use his executive power to make decisions which reverse those made by Obama. Moreover, Trump is making these decisions as quickly as possible on the basis that he has an electoral mandate. It remains to be seen how far he can go with such an approach without experiencing legal challenges. But it seems likely that he will be able to reverse the many executive decisions made on environmental policy either by Obama himself or through his direction to the Environmental Protection Authority. Such reversals have important implications for Australian environmental policies and, judging by his handling of trade policy, Turnbull and his Cabinet will not have already considered them adequately, if at all.

As more is revealed about the background to Obama’s decisions in other areas, Trump is likely to implement more reversals. I have already mentioned that the now former head of CIA, John Brennan, had denied any connection between Islamic religion and militancy. This evening’s news reported that Trump has announced a policy of restricting immigration and access to the US for refugees and visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen ie countries with predominantly Muslim populations. Also reversed are the prayer arrangements apparently made at the White House for Muslims and some other religions (see article below from a conservative news organisation in the US on Obama Crushed After Trump Orders White House To Stop His Sickest tradition).

Many commentators have complained that Trump’s policies have created uncertainty that will have adverse effects for his government and there is no doubt that there are numerous groups strongly protesting and demonstrating against his decisions. The other side of that coin is that Obama created uncertainty about US policies, both foreign and domestic, through the many major changes he made over the eight years he was in office and which also had many adverse effects. Arguably, while most of the media did not support Trump’s proposals, they were all subjected to intense scrutiny during a long election campaign in a democracy and should now be accepted as legitimate. Interestingly, the NY Times has apologised for its treatment of the election campaign. Perhaps the opposition will now start to moderate to the norm in democracies.

Iraq Invasion

Des Moore — Sat, 09 Jul 2016 09:53:31 +0000

The Chilcot report in the UK on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which took no less than 7 years to compile, has concluded that there was “no imminent threat” from Saddam Hussein at the time the US, the UK, and Australia invaded Iraq even though intelligence reports had concluded that he had acquired weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). As no WMDs were found by the invaders, it is now generally accepted that those intelligence reports were wrong, although some of those involved still argue that Saddam moved WMDs to Syria. Writing in The Times, Jewish journalist Melanie Phillips quotes several sources to that effect. She also argues that Saddam was “the god father of international terrorism”.

While agreeing with some of the report’s conclusions, Greg Sheridan provides a wider context from which to view the Chilcot report. He argues that the judgements made in the report took insufficient account of the political/strategic environment at the time. This would have included the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001. He also argues that the Iraq invasion did not cause the present turmoil in the Middle East and, in particular, that Islamic State emerged out of Syria “a collapsed nation in which the West did not intervene at all”. The suggestion by former ONA official Andrew Wilkie (now re-elected) that the invasion led to terrorist acts against Australians is dismissed.

In a separate press conference Howard described Wilkie’s claims as absurd particularly as regards the Bali bombings, the first of which occurred before the invasion. Howard also indicated that he had a copy of an ONA paper written by Wilkie and expressing sympathy with the need to deal with Saddam.

There is no doubt, however, that the invasion of Iraq was badly managed and that some deaths of soldiers should have been avoided. This has made it difficult if not impossible for the UK and US to provide troops on the ground in the fight against extremist Islamic groups in the Middle East. Yet there can surely be no doubt that a country or group which is headed by someone threatening violent action against democratic governments should be subject to attack with military force. That position currently exists with regard to North Korea.

There are also extremist Islamic groups which while not yet having WMDs have the potential to acquire and use them. ISIS is one such group and it is being attacked, albeit mainly with air raids to date. The Taliban group is also subject to attack by US forces, as indicated by President Obama’s decision to maintain over 8,000 troops in Afghanistan until the end of his Presidential term. It is in our own interests to ensure that such military action is not dismissed in the future.

Turnbull’s Islamic Policy

Des Moore — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 10:58:37 +0000

Due to the time needed to complete the sale of the house Felicity and I owned at Malua Bay, I have not been able to send a Commentary since 29 May. With the house sale completed today, it is opportune to comment briefly on an attempt by Turnbull to portray a close relationship with Australia’s Muslim community while at the same time acknowledging that “in this age of terrorism –overwhelmingly inspired by radical Islamist ideology –our security agencies must have the trust of Isalmic communities in order to succeed”. Attached are reports from today’s Australian, which gave front page treatment to Turnbull’s dinner invitation “dozens” of Muslims.

Anti-gay Muslim sheik Shady Alsuleiman attends Turnbull’s dinner
Anti-gay Muslim leader attends dinner with PM
Malcolm Turnbull blames ‘radical Islamist ideology’ for terrorism

Turnbull’s use of “radical Islamist ideology” as the main cause of terrorism appears to reverse his earlier denial of any connection between terrorist activity and religion. It coincides with the killing of nearly 50 in the US (and the wounding of many too) by an IS sympathiser but again played down by Obama as no more than a lone wolf; the killing of an off-duty police commissioner in France by a jihadist previously jailed; the murder in open daylight of an MP in the UK, which may be an Orlando copycat.

But Turnbull also attempts to play down the influence of “terrorist” Islam and the need for any further government counter-vailing action. Note in particular his comments that:

All Muslims should not be tagged with responsibility for “the crimes of a tiny terrorist minority”. That is totally misleading, of course. Very few are tagging all Muslims. But there are many more Muslims than a tiny minority who are supportive of jihadism and the fact that most terrorism is derived from Islam should be a major concern to the government and Australians more generally. Yet under Turnbull Australia has become less involved in the Iraq/Syria fighting notwithstanding the invitation by US defence secretary ;
“We continue to reform our national security laws to give our agencies the powers they need”. This ignores the need to give our agencies the power and instruction to prosecute those advocating violence as well as those actually pursuing it. Of particular relevance here is whether there is sufficient checking of those admitted as immigrants;
He made no reference to Islamic terrorism in his short speech to the “dozens” of Muslims he invited to dinner at Kirribilli House. This invitation was a major initiative but was it approved by other senior ministers? Is a short speech the way to explain the concern which many Australians feel about the attitudes of the Islamic community and the extent to which they are acceptable to those not in that community. Would it not be better to publish a major document explaining the norms in Australia, including the treatment of women ;
He repeated his earlier statement to the Islamic Council that Muslims are “an integral part of an Australian family that rests on the essential foundation of mutual respect and understanding”. But the family does not include one of the Sheiks invited to dinner who would not have been invited by Turnbull if he had known of earlier pronouncements by the Sheik supporting death to homosexuals. The Muslim attitude to homosexuals has been a major issue in the Orlando incident because the terrorist attacked those attending a gay club. One wonders if there are other examples where there would be intra-family differences and whether they would have been excluded from the guest list – sharia law or jihadism? Note also that Turnbull blames his department for the invitation to the anti-gay guy.

Turnbull is in one sense on safe ground with Labor because that party will also seek friendly relations with the Muslim community. Unless the so-called right wing of the Coalition insists on additional action to preserve Western culture we will move in the same direction as Britain and France, where there are in effect now two communities in one country. Interestingly, in France there is currently a major dispute over the country of origin of artists who are to participate in the commemoration of a major battle in World War I. Would Australia invite a Muslim singer at an Anzac function?

Workplace Relations Reforms, The US in Syria? Iraq, Earth Day

Des Moore — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:33:27 +0000

Workplace Relations Reform

Malcolm Turnbull has been prepared to risk forcing a double dissolution to obtain a vote by both houses sitting together on legislation to pass the Registered Organisations bill and to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That body was abolished under the Gillard government in May 2012 and replaced by Fair Work Building & Construction with much reduced regulatory powers. Turnbull also secured the winding up of the Roads Safety Remuneration Tribunal established under Gillard at the behest of the Transport Workers union and effectively designed to favour unions able to collude with transport companies.

Today’s The Australian has run several letters supporting the actions by the Turnbull government which, if successful in the election, will significantly reduce the unjustified power obtained by unions under the regulatory arrangements applying mainly to the construction industry. But the Fair Work Commission itself, which was also established by the Gillard government, has allowed its regulations applying to other industries to also favour unions. The restoration of the ABCC would not provide any significant improvement in those industries.

The Letters Ed has rather strangely titled the letters “It could take years for the economy to change course” but such a title is certainly relevant to the arrangements that would be applied under the Fair Work Commission. The letter which I wrote, and which is published below, refers to the FWC and suggests that Turnbull should propose reforms to the arrangements which that body administers in regard to industries outside the construction industry.

Relevant here is the findings of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, a section on which was omitted from my letter. When that body’s final report was published the Minister for Employment, Michaelia Cash, wrote an article in The Australian indicating that “This government will take firm and swift action to act on the findings and 79 recommendations in the final report”. However, while Turnbull himself promised that a response to the Commission would be forthcoming, no attempt has yet been made to indicate other reforms are justified by it. Given that Turnbull has been subject to criticism for failing to establish an economic policy, a policy of further extensive reforms to workplace relations would fit well as part of such a policy and would have the potential to put Shorten on the back foot.

The US in Iraq/Syria

The Australian also reports that the US has, for the first time, sent a B52 bomber to help Iraq attack IS in Mosul. This follows the announcement by US Defence Secretary to send extra US troops there and an involvement of US commandoes with Kurdish forces (see The US in Iraq/Syria).

It appears that active preparations are being made for an attack on Mosul and that the US will be providing support, although not “troops on the ground” because, while Obama claimed recently that IS is on the defensive, he continues to oppose activating troops. The increase in activity follows a meeting by Carter with the Saudis and an attempt by him to persuade members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to play a more active role (see US in Syria/Iraq).

This situation provides an opportunity for Turnbull to establish a more active Australian role in circumstances where the US is increasing its role in a cause that is in our interests.

Earth Day

Earth Day occurs on April 22 and is widely used to promote the alleged need for governments to take measures to reduce the use of fossil fuels. It will be the day when those countries which pledged in Paris last December to reduce emissions formally sign the agreement in New York.

I have previously pointed out that, if the pledges are met, there will actually be an increase of 23% in emissions by the main emitters by 2030, mainly originating from China and India. As far as I am aware this has not been publicised and doubtless there will be celebrations in the media of the “success” of the Paris meeting and a repetition of claims that the recent increase in global temperatures confirmed the need for action. However this increase accompanied the El Nino and with the end of that natural phenomenon has already started to fade.

Some Implications of Brussels

Des Moore — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:25:29 +0000

Some are asking why Brussels has experienced an act of terrorism which has killed over 30 and wounded over 250. The answer is simple. Belgium has a large Muslim population centred in Brussels and which includes a significant number of extremists committed to jihadist acts against both Westerners and Muslims who have not accepted jihadism. Belgium is also exposed to the an immigration policy within Europe which is almost a free go and, more recently, allows large numbers of refugees from Syria and Iraq who have included jihadists.

This situation is elaborated in the article by Andrew Bolt below and in this article by the Gatestone Institute whose head is former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.

Recognising the Seriousness of Islamic Threat

As indicated in the Gatestone analysis, the Belgium government (and the numerous local authorities) has probably been the worst in Europe to tackle the threat from Islamic jihadists, partly because it is an ethnically divided country and there is no national narrative. A brief mention of some aspects illustrate the extent of the problem it now faces;

Of the population of 700,000 an estimated 6.2% are Muslims;
Within the 300,000 in Brussels there is a concentration in the suburb of Molenbeek where unemployment is 40% and the Minister for the Interior acknowledges the government has no control over the situation there (in fact the Mayor of Molenbeek says it is not his responsibility to look for terrorists);
The Muslim population has established a Sharia4Belgium group which accepts sharia law;
A cache of a background image from the Sharia4Belgium web has been made into a flag which flies over the Belgium parliament.

I have mentioned in earlier Commentaries that Europe is moving towards a situation where it could be controlled by Muslims. Steyn has predicted that too.

The Belgium situation indicates that there it has at a minimum gone beyond that from which there seems no turning back. Despite assuring statements by Hollande (who appears to have actually taken little counter action), France has probably also reached this situation. Germany may well be the next major country to experience a major terrorist attack from within. The extent of the Muslim population in these and other European countries is such that it cannot be reversed and it is unlikely to be prevented from increasing.

The best that can be hoped for in Europe is the establishment of counter-terrorist legislation and agencies which can minimise jihadist activity. France has increased its counter forces and the Belgium government has now indicated a large increase in its counter terrorist forces. But this is not going to stop extremists: we can expect to see bouts of terrorist activity continue to occur across Europe and the UK. This will be the new “norm” in those countries. We can only hope that access remains limited to weapons which are only as destructive as suicide bombs

Implications for Australia

Turnbull has reacted to Brussels by correctly indicating that Australia is better placed to handle terrorist activity because it controls its borders and has built up its counter terrorist agencies. He has also pointed out that, relatively, the Europeans have “allowed things to slip”.

But it is by no means clear that our immigration policy is strict enough to prevent the admission of Muslims who are sympathetic to the extremist view. No announcements have been made about migrant applicants who have been rejected on an assessment that they are a security risk because they could become Islamic terrorists.

Also, as argued in this Australian editorial, “he is wrong to foster any sense of comfort for us” …”More than 100 Australian jihadists have joined Islamic State and just as many have been blocked from leaving. We have suffered three fatal terrorist incidents in 18 months and, over a longer period, security agencies have thwarted six plots, including planned mass casualty attacks. Some Middle Eastern and African Muslim cohorts haven’t integrated as successfully as earlier waves of immigrants, and hot spots of Islamist extremism have developed in Sydney and Melbourne”.

This editorial also points out that “the Prime Minister, like many political leaders, tends to talk about this issue without referring to the enemy: Islamist extremism. This reluctance to name an obvious threat tends to be patronising towards Muslims, who are familiar with the problem, and can frustrate the wider public, who want to know their leaders value strong security over political correctness”.

The editorial should have added that Turnbull has not retracted from his earlier claim that there is no connection between extremist terrorists and religion. Indeed he recently visited the Victorian Muslims Council and spoke to the audience as if all Muslims are welcome regardless. It is important that the religious origins of extremism be widely recognised. That requires a statement by the government on its attitude to Islamism.