Institute for Private Enterprise » ISIS

More on Islamic Killing; Further Downturn in Newspoll

Des Moore — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 23:58:37 +0000

Morrison Confirms Serious Problems with Islamiscists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Downturn in Newspoll

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

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

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

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

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.

Trump’s State of Union

Des Moore — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 12:44:32 +0000

Trump’s State of the Union

The annual State of the Union address to Congress by the President is regarded as a fairly formal report on what he regards as having happened over the past year, the accomplishments and the already known policies being pursued. The event is however seen as one of the most important in the US political calendar because it is one of the few occasions when all three branches of government are collected under one roof and it has also been used as an opportunity to honor the achievements of some individual Americans.

On occasions the President has also taken the opportunity to announce new policies or give existing ones new names or additional emphasis. After the 9/11 attack, for instance, President George W. Bush identified North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as representing significant threats to the United States, adding that “States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world”. His address outlined what he described as a “War on Terror”. Interestingly, with the collection of senior Americans all in one place to hear the address, it was decided some time ago that the terrorist threat requires the “hiding” of one senior who could take over as President if the hearings and the occupants are destroyed.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Trump’s address is that it provided an opportunity to bring together in a one hour address the main policies being promulgated by the President and the main threats he believes the country faces. The rating to Trump given by TV stations was 26.9 compared with Obama’s second Union address of 29.8 (his last one was 19.6) and George Bush’s second of 33.6. This might be said to be better than expected given the continued attack on Trump by much of the media and his continued attack on the media generally. This action by the leader of a country is most unusual and that Trump got a reasonable rating may offer other leaders an opportunity.

More generally, although strongly criticised by the Democrats (with a Kennedy being the lead speaker), Trump has had a reasonably good reception, partly because he is regarded as having offered or confirmed some compromises on the policies he had been advocating. This partly relates to his agreement to support citizenship to 1.8 million so-called “Dreamers” (who came to the US with their parents illegally as children )in exchange for sharp overall cuts to immigration and $US25 billion ($31bn) for the Mexican border wall.

But this compromise has not been accepted by the Democrats, who are threatening a possible further shutdown (although the first one went down badly recently) after the budget is introduced shortly (see Democrats Opposition to State of Union). With the likelihood following the tax cuts of a significant increase in the forecast budget deficit (but doubtless reducing over time), further threats or actual shutdowns seem likely. One possible saving that has been reported may be in spending on renewables and related programs, for which the budget may propose cuts of 72%.

Examples of media reaction include the editorial in The Australian (see Editorial on State of Union), which claims the speech was “well pitched and has already been well received”and that “Trump’s first year has been underrated”. It is certainly true that Trump has greatly benefitted from the improved growth in the economy and employment, although how much of that is due to him is moot. By contrast, a columnist for Bloomberg View (reprinted by the AFR) thought that Trump was “more self-congratulatory than most Presidents” (see Bernstein on State of Union).

More seriously, Greg Sheridan thought it was “a strong speech and it had a pretty good story to tell” and that “he certainly is entitled to bask in some of the credit for the economic surge”. He judges that the two outrageous rorts in the US immigration scheme(the use of relatives and the green card lottery)will be put to an end and supports Trump’s view for a merit-based system in which, like Australia, borders are controlled. According to Sheridan, we are “free to administer the most successful immigration system in the world”. (see Sheridan on State of Union).

On foreign policy, Sheridan argues that all of Trump’s specific policy commitments are sensible. In particular

The most important message was that Trump explicitly named China and Russia as rivals (some of Australian ministers have objected to such language but have failed to explain why we need a larger defence force if it is not true);
Modernise the US nuclear arsenal and keep it up to date ( it is not regarded as appropriate to even think about Australia having an arsenal);
Make a strong pitch for Congress to authorize increased defence expenditure ( previous Commentary have referred to Mattis’s proposals for a stronger defence force and to reports that Trump will seek an increase of 7% next year);
Keep Guatanamo Bay open to incarcerate the worst terrorists who Trump (and many others) regards as additional enemy combatants (despite Obama’s attempts to close GB, there are still 41 there);
Make sure that in the fight against the ISIS and al-Qa’ida the US had the necessary power to detain terror suspects “wherever we chase them down, wherever we find them”.
Congress is being asked to address the fundamental flaws in the Iran nuclear deal;
Tough sanctions have been imposed on the communist and socialist dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela;
A campaign of maximum pressure is being imposed to prevent North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear missiles which could very soon threaten our homeland. “Past experience has taught us that complacency and concessions only invite aggression and provocation. I will not repeat the mistakes of past administrations that got us into this dangerous position. We need only look at the depraved character of the North Korean regime to understand the nature of the nuclear threat it could pose to America and our allies”.

On international trade, David Uren points out that, while Trump believes that the rules-based framework has been exploited by China, he has been more cautious about imposing economic sanctions than when he came to office. He argues that the recent imposition of tariffs on imports of Chinese solar panels and washing machines is not just trade policy but foreign policy which seeks compliance with rules and that the US talks of fair not free trade (see Uren on State of Union). This seems to me to be rather theoretical.

Overall, whatever we may think of him as an individual, Trump’s address exposes the reality of the many threats to society not only in the USA but in other countries too. It also indicates the difficulties of governance when there are wide differences of view within those countries. Let us hope for leaders with Trump’s capacity and who are able to show the way towards overcoming the many outstanding problems.

Trump at Davos & Australian Comments on US Defense Strategy Statement

Des Moore — Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:16:43 +0000

Trump at Davos

What with the likely winners of both the women’s and men’s Australian tennis being Swiss and the address by Trump at Davos, the Swiss are in the News. Once again Trump found a phrase which helped rebut the criticism of his “America First” statement by adding “but not America alone” and, with China in mind, emphasising the need for “fair” trade as well as “free” . Separately, it is reported that Trump approved increased duties affecting about $US10bn of imports but it is not clear whether this was “justified” on a fair trade assertion. An article in The Economist, republished in yesterday’s The Australian, says that the actions were “broadly in line with the steer from the US International Trade Commission” and were weaker than sought.

There will doubtless be media criticism of his use of Davos to again attack the media itself (the boos he received when doing so are unusual at the more official-type Davos). But judging by the BBC report on his reception (see BBC on Trump at Davos), his decision to attend (and his meeting with May confirming that he will make a visit to the UK and will have tea with the Queen) will not have adversely affected his image. According to the BBC report “ mention his name in the bustling foyer of the Congress Centre, and the reaction is surprisingly benign.Many attendees shrug indifferently, rather than launch into an angry rant”. Of course, because of its small size, “protesters” were not allowed in Davos but there was ample opportunity for critics at the Forum. I have seen no comments on Mother Nature’s climate decision to present attendants with what seemed on TV to be large amounts of snow!

US Policies on Defence and Iran

In earlier Commentary I have referred to policy statements by US Foreign Secretary Tillerson and US Defense Secretary Mattis and suggested that their capacity to make such statements seems to reflect Trump’s recent (unannounced) decision to extend a much greater delegation on relevant policies than Obama allowed.

An interesting development is that Tillerson has now persuaded the three European countries who signed up Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran to identify possible problems and how they might be dealt with. On 27 January Tillerson is reported as saying that “The working groups… are looking at the scope of what to address in the Iran deal, as well as how to engage Tehran on possible fixes to those issues”. “What we have agreed to do is work with our European counterparts, the E3 most particularly, and ultimately the [European Union], to identify what areas we believe have to be addressed and a mechanism by which we can address those.” (see Tillerson on Iran Nuclear Deal).

On 20 January Defense Secretary Mattis published a new Defense Strategy indicating that “Though we will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we’re engaged in today, the great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security,” Mattis said in his opening statements at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.The new strategy is “fit for our time,” Mattis said. “Though he identified a number of threats to the US like North Korea, Iran, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda, the NDS was focused more on China and Russia. “We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other. Nations that do seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,” Mattis said.In the document itself, China and Russia are both mentioned by name in the introduction” (see Mattis Statement on US Defence Strategy Jan 2018).

The text of this important 11 page statement is in the attached. It implies that the US aims to restore a defence policy which will extend more widely and effectively in geographic terms. Of course, it is one thing to attempt an upgrading of defence policy, but quite another to find the money to effect the upgrading of equipment et al. It is reported that Trump proposes to ask Congress for an increase of 7 per cent in defence in 2019 and is likely to find that difficult to obtain (see Trump Proposes Big Increase In Defence Spending).

An important aspect of the new Defense Strategy is the emphasis on alliances. The following extract (see page 10) indicates the broadness of the approach adopted by Mattis.

“Enduring coalitions and long-term security partnerships, underpinned by our bedrock alliances and reinforced by our allies’ own webs of security relationships, remain a priority:

Expand Indo-Pacific alliances and partnerships. A free and open Indo-Pacific region provides prosperity and security for all. We will strengthen our alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific to a networked security architecture capable of deterring aggression, maintaining stability, and ensuring free access to common domains. With key countries in the region, we will bring together bilateral and multilateral security relationships to preserve the free and open international system.
Fortify the Trans-Atlantic NATO Alliance. A strong and free Europe, bound by shared principles of democracy, national sovereignty, and commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is vital to our security. The alliance will deter Russian adventurism, defeat terrorists who seek to murder innocents, and address the arc of instability building on NATO’s periphery. At the same time, NATO must adapt to remain relevant and fit for our time—in purpose, capability, and responsive decision-making. We expect European allies to fulfill their commitments to increase defense and modernization spending to bolster the alliance in the face of our shared security concerns.
Form enduring coalitions in the Middle East. We will foster a stable and secure Middle East that denies safe havens for terrorists, is not dominated by any power hostile to the United States, and that contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes. We will develop enduring coalitions to consolidate gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, to support the lasting defeat of terrorists as we sever their sources of strength and counterbalance Iran.
Sustain advantages in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. derives immense benefit from a stable, peaceful hemisphere that reduces security threats to the homeland. Supporting the U.S. interagency lead, the Department will deepen its relations with regional countries that contribute military capabilities to shared regional and global security challenges”.

Yesterday the Australian Minister for Defence, Senator Payne, acknowledged the importance of the Mattis statement made a week ago but neither she nor Turnbull appear to have made any statement. In the report below The Australian’s National Security Editor, Paul Maley, suggested that “We look like strategic amateurs”. I would not be surprised if Payne has yet to meet Mattis. We await an announcement that out pitful defence spending will be increased from below 2 per cent of GDP to reach that size by 2021.

Pence Address to Knesset & Threatened Turkey/US Clash in Syria

Des Moore — Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:05:16 +0000

Pence Visit to Israel Indicates Extensive US Interest in Mid-East

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

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

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

Threat of Turkey/US Clash in Northern Syria

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

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

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

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.

Iran After Five Days

Des Moore — Sat, 06 Jan 2018 00:17:18 +0000

Today’s Australian published my letter calling for the Turnbull government to support the US initiative opposing Islamic regimes in Iran as it did with the caliphate in Iraq (see below). At the same time, however, it published what can only be described as a strange Op-Ed by Clive Williams, who is a visiting professor at the Australian National University’s Centre for Military & Security Law and an adjunct professor at the Australian Defence Force Academy.

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

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

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

Potential for Major Improvements in Governance in Iran

Des Moore — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 01:20:02 +0000

In my Commentary of 1 January I drew attention to the absence of any substantive references in our media to the successful defeat of the ISIS caliphate by Iraqi and Syrian forces, with support provided by US and Australian forces. I drew particular attention to Trump’s delegation of decision-making to Secretary Tillerson and commanders in the field and to his indication that the defeat of ISIS was a priority. This contrasted with the dire situation a year ago described in a special press briefing given on 22 December by the US envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (this was not reported in our media). His description of “a dire situation” may have reflected Obama’s policy of first requiring his clearance to take military action and his refusal to have US troops on the ground in Iraq (except for Special Forces).

For Australia a joint announcement of the defeat of the ISIS caliphate was made on 10 December by the PM and Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence and the announced withdrawal of Australian strike aircraft (but the retention of Australian training assistance and Special Forces to contribute to the on-going threat from IS groups) was made on 22 Dec by our Defence Minister, Marise Payne. In neither case was there any reference to the possible influence on Islamist beliefs elsewhere or on Australian policy in regard to Islamic influences on governments generally. My Commentary did suggest however that the reported “widespread protests in Iran provides an opportunity for political leaders in the West (including Australia) to call for a more democratic society and protection of human rights in that country”.

Since my Commentary was circulated it is apparent from press reports and TV news that the protests in Iran are not only widespread across the country but seem also to be widespread across Iranian citizens. Calls for the resignation of President Hassan Rouhani (“elected” in 2013 and “re-elected” last May) and of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni have been accompanied by calls of “Death” for them, and TV footage has shown attacks on police in the streets.

The article below published in the Wall St Journal on 1 Jan rejects the proposal that Trump say nothing and argues that Iranian protesters are looking for American support. Trump himself has tweeted in favourable and has said that the US is “watching” for breaches of human rights. Two other articles attached provide analysis of probable reasons for the outbreak of protests on such a wide scale. Note that the first article claims that “Tehran is estimated to be channelling up to $26 billion to Damascus in investment and aid each year, and 1000 Iranians have died in the conflict there, according to an official statement. The true number is likely to be far higher”. Second article here.

There is potential for a major change in governance in Iran, particularly a reduction in the power of Islam and a diminution of the power of the Supreme Leader, which Australia should support. Turnbull should follow Trump and make a brief statement (but not a tweet!) saying that we support in Iran more democratic governance and increased protection of human rights. Any such development would also have an influence beyond Iran into other areas in the Middle East.

How to Save 20-30 Coalition Seats

Des Moore — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 11:07:34 +0000

Latest Survey Shows Coalition Could Lose 20-30 Seats In an Election

As 2018 starts it is pertinent to ask whether we might expect an improved performance by the Turnbull government if it continues during the year. Turnbull himself had an article in Sunday’s Herald Sun and the heading to the article implies he is telling us just that, viz TIME TO FOCUS ON FUTURE (see attached, which I could only obtain digitally by first making a phone call to a technician at Herald Sun HQ as, rather surprisingly, they it did not have it on its web). Turnbull also sent me a message personally yesterday – and others too, presumably! (see My Message From Turnbull & use the right clicks).

The most striking element in Turnbull’s messages is, however, their emphasis on policy decisions already taken and their claimed beneficial influence on future developments. There is very little that constitutes new policy or changes to existing policy and, hence, little focus on the future. There are also considerable over-statements/errors about the effects of policies already announced.

Note that the article/statement by Turnbull follow almost immediately after a Newspoll quarterly survey of opinions in capital cities on 26 Dec. Political editor of The Australian, Simon Benson, reported that “ the Coalition has suffered a two-point fall in its two-party-preferred vote in the five mainland state capital cities since September to trail Labor 55-45. On a two-party-preferred basis, Labor leads 55-45 in Queensland, 54-46 in NSW and Victoria and 53-47 in both South Australia and Western Australia. This represents a 4 per cent swing nationally to Labor, which, if repeated at the next election, could result in the loss of between 20 and 30 seats for the Liberal and Nationals parties” (see attached Coalition’s Polling Falls Further 26 Dec). Benson describes this polling as“Close to point of no return”.

Points made in Turnbull’s article/statement do not appear to have inspired any policy changes in major areas of controversy:

Middle income tax relief already made is described as “tax cuts”. But, to benefit from the very modest change in individual tax rates from 1 July 2016, one’s taxable income must be more than $80,000. The article does say that there will be “more tax relief for middle-income Australians” but adds only that “more money will be put into the hands of Australian families … without compromising our commitment to return the Budget to surplus”. However, as indicated in my Commentary of 24 Dec, the Mid-Year Budget report suggests the achievement of a surplus would not allow any significant tax reduction without major spending cuts.
No policy is offered to either ameliorate cost of living pressures or overcome the limited growth in real wages by increased productivity and deregulation of workplace relations.
References are made to the recent vehicle attack in Melbourne and to the importance of the national security policy. But no reference is made to the handling of the on-going threat from extremist Islam groups/individuals both in Australia and overseas (see further below).
Extensive attention is given to the increase in energy prices. But there is no acknowledgement that policy changes made to increase the use of renewables at both Federal and State levels have been the major contributors or that (at least) a reduction in emissions/renewable targets would be an important help in reducing energy prices. In fact, the only reference to possible price falls is that there will be “downward pressure on energy prices” after the completion of the highly questionable economics of Snowy Hydro 2.0 project – but the project will not be completed until 2024 anyway!

Separately, the head of the ACCC, Rod Sims (who attended Christmas drinks for “old” Treasury officers sponsored by Treasury Head John Fraser), is undertaking two major reviews for the federal government aimed at tackling Australia’s energy crisis. But his comments reported in The Australian on the day before Turnbull’s article gave no indication that he had changes in mind which would reduce energy prices (see Sims on Energy Policy). As head of a body responsible for competition in Australia, Sims seems to have downplayed the adverse effects which can occur from government regulations.

The question for the immediate future is what can be done by the Turnbull government to limit the loss of seats in an election. The New Year messages from Turnbull himself suggest that what he has in mind falls well short of what is needed and those in marginal seats should be publicly advocating changes and making the point that the aim is not simply to stay in office until the last possible date for an election. Apart from possible changes to the policies discussed above, it is relevant is that One Nation is aiming to target all federal seats in Queensland, where the Coalition holds 21 out of 30 federal seats. Even if it won none of those seats (as happened with LNP seats in the recent State election), One Nation could cause a significant loss of of Coalition seats unless the Coalition has a preference deal with it. But Turnbull has so far refused to countenance a preference deal (see examples of the effect on State seats given in attached One Nation Targets). A willingness to now do so could signal an important initiative in the New Year and might start with an agreement to modify the existing absurd energy policy so as to allow reductions energy prices in a more competitive environment.

Islamic Threat

I mention above the question of how to handle the threat from extremist Islamism. An important largely neglected achievement was the ending of the Islamic State’s so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria. While both Iraqi and Syrian forces played the major role, they were significantly assisted by the US under President Trump, who (by contrast with Obama) delegated authorities to Secretary Tillerson and to commanders in the field and indicated that the defeat of ISIS was a priority. The US envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS told a special press briefing on 22 December that there had been a dire situation a year ago. Trump has drawn attention to both the external and internal threats. But there has been no mention in our media of the important role now being played by the US under Trump.

The on-the-ground defeat of ISIS allows the withdrawal of Australian strike aircraft but a contingent of Australian training assistance and Special Forces will remain as ISIS groups continue to operate. Much remains to be done in the area to establish meaningful democratic societies but our role has helped sent a signal that extremist interpretations of Islam are not acceptable in our modern world.

In my Commentary of 24 December I referred to an article in The Australian by Chris Kenny which argued for a more open public recognition of the extent of the threat. In the Weekend Australian for 30-31 Dec he takes this further and, as a conclusion, asks the question “do we need to accept that the Islamist aim of disrupting our society by targeting infidels and innocents cannot be truly defeated until the ideology itself is exposed, confronted and eradicated?” (see Kenny on Islamic Extremist Threat). The report that there were recent widespread protests in Iran provides an opportunity for political leaders in the West (including Australia) to call for a more democratic society and protection of human rights in that country.

Happy New Year to all

PS The web site of the Sunday Herald Sun now contains an article by Malcolm Turnbull which is quite different to the one in yesterday’s published version and is headed “Australia, hold your head high as we are well placed to face challenges”. There is no “TIME TO FOCUS ON THE FUTURE” on the latest version.

Las Vegas & Widening of Police Assessments But No Gas Policy

Des Moore — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:53:35 +0000

Such details as are available for the Las Vegas killer (causing 59 deaths and 527 injuries) do not suggest he was directly influenced by ISIS, although that body claims responsibility (it obviously suits it to claim responsibility for deaths in the US). However, the killer (Paddock, white) may have been indirectly influenced by that body’s jihadist policy of killing those perceived to be opposed to Islam. For details of Paddock’s life, see Vegas Killer’s Background.

Coinciding with the US killings are two reports of terrorist action in France and Canada (2 deaths and 5 injured) and a report that “Last week Islamic State released a new recording, supposedly of leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — whom the Russians believed dead — exhorting followers to strike at the West” (see IS Attacks in France & Canada). Australia is of course subject to a possible attack.

Interestingly, while last evening’s 6.30 TV news on SBS reported Las Vegas and these other two incidents, the 7.00 ABC TV news reported only on Las Vegas and failed to mention either the French or Canadian incidents or the report of a Baghdadi statement. Nor did it mention them on ABC Radio News this morning. But it did not forget to discuss the gun control issue in the US.

An important development here (presumably prompted by Las Vegas) is today’s report that the recently appointed (30 March) NSW Police Commissioner Fuller is claiming that his establishment of a “fixated persons unit” of 17 in the NSW police force has, in the last six months, resulted in 6 people having been charged and 32 investigated in regard to terrorist activity or threats (see NSW Policy on Combating Terrorism).It appears that (sensibly) this unit is responsible for preventing attacks by terrorists and by those who become obsessed with other extreme views about perceived threats from sources other than religious ones. This has led to the establishment of a close relationship between NSW police and health officials, including the Chief Psychiatrist. The latter is reported as saying that they only share health information when they are convinced there is potential for serious harm.

It may be that the 15 year old, charged last week with two counts of attempted murder for allegedly driving a car strait at individuals in Swanston St, is a fixated person. Contrary to initial reports, however, it is now being said that he does not have a mental health problem (see Melbourne Attacker Not Mentally Ill).

In his response, Turnbull has been fast off the mark in announcing that State and territory leaders will meet on Thursday for a special national security summit. “We must constantly improve our laws and our techniques to stay ahead of those who seek to do us harm” (see extracts Aus Meeting of PM & States on National Security). It is to be hoped that Turnbull will tell the meeting that, while Islamic Extremism is the most serious source of terrorism facing Australia, counter-terrorist policies should be extended to counter this not only through intelligence agencies but also through police action of the type adopted by the NSW establishment of a fixated persons unit.

Gas Policy Went Missing

Last week Turnbull said that the agreement on additional domestic gas supplies would be concluded today and would be legally binding. So far, however, there has been no indication of what has happened or will happen to this in the period ahead. Parliament resumes in two weeks time.