Turnbull, 7.30 Interview and Related Developments
On Tuesday I circulated a strong critique of Turnbull’s National Security statement. This is on my Institute for Private Enterprise web site. By contrast, almost all commentators praised it, although in both Wednesday’s and yesterday’s The Australian political editor Dennis Shanahan expressed some reservations, including in regard to Turnbull’s dismissal of the idea of attacking ISIL by sending troops –or, as it is commonly called, “putting troops on the ground”. Shanahan also suggested that having “a prime minister use a security address to parliament as an instrument to respond to a backbencher — albeit one who was prime minister only two months ago — devalues his own message and simultaneously emboldens and enrages Abbott” (see “Turnbull v Abbott –Shanahan” and “Interpretation of Turnbull’s Security Statement”).
Commentary on Turnbull’s Security Statement
PM Turnbull’s National Security Statement tells us that ISIL is “in a fundamentally weak position” and this has “strengthened the resolve of the global community... to defeat it”. But there is apparently a consensus among the leaders he met at recent international meetings against “sending a large US-led Western army to attempt to conquer and hold ISIL controlled areas”.
Some Things are Ruled Out, Some Not
We have now experienced two meetings/summits of world leaders following the Paris terrorist attacks last Friday, one by the G20 in Turkey and one in Manila by those involved in the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (still to be approved by the US Congress). Although there was a general recognition at both meetings that the Islamic State constituted a powerful force and agreement that “something needs to be done” to combat it, no specific combined response was agreed, except that whatever else might be done boots on the ground are ruled out.
Some Responses to Paris Attacks
Immediately following the terrorist attacks in Paris world leaders (sic) met in Turkey and issued a joint statement. Although I have not so far obtained the full text, it is evident from extracts in this attachment that the basic problem was not addressed. In one sense that is not surprising: the G20 has a poor record in addressing fundamentals and has tended to use meaningless general phrases. And its membership includes countries whose populations accept religions which to varying extents derive from the Koran and which were the religions of the suicide bombers in Paris and those who planned the attack, reportedly in Syria.
Islamic Problem – Some Implications from French Attack
French Premier Hollande has responded to the killings and/or serious wounding of seemingly over 200 people in Paris (perhaps 450 killed or wounded in total) by declaring war on IS and closing French borders (presumably to migrants from other European countries). Just what this means in practice remains to be seen: with about 6mn Muslims in France the government seems unlikely to change its “philosophy” that terrorism does not have religious motives and that what “we” are dealing with are extremists operating contrary to the Islamic religion. IS is said to be doing that.
Refugees Surge Raises Serious Problems
The difficulties being experienced by refugees from Syria, Iraq and other Middle East countries in reaching Germany are not stopping the increasing attempts by individuals to take advantage of the free inflow which that country is allowing. Some are portraying Merkel as a saviour and there is pressure on other western countries to accept increased numbers.
Policies on Refugees & Islamic Extremism
There has been universal agreement that the large numbers now fleeing from Syria, Iraq, Libya and other Middle East/African countries should either be accepted as refugees or provided with assistance in some form. Unfortunately, there is no public recognition that the primary cause of the refugee surge is the ongoing murder and destruction occurring under the terrorist activity of IS, al-Qaeda and other extremist Islamic groups. This includes the Assad regime, which is being helped by the Russians and the Iranians.
Coalition Needs Major Policy Initiative
///
It is becoming increasingly difficult to see how Abbott can survive on the basis of existing policies and the way they are presented. After a period of public debate over the Royal Commission, during which Shorten and various unions were exposed as having behaved very poorly, Newspoll is still unchanged on a TPP basis (46/54) and Shorten remains Better PM (41/37). In addition, while 68% want the RC to continue, Heydon himself gets bad marks for his mishandling of the invitation to a Liberal Party function. Further, the support for the China FTA (only 43% and 22% uncommitted) indicates a failure to fully explain that it exposed virtually no risk from foreign-sourced labour ( Robb’s explanations yesterday on the ABC’s Insiders was excellent but he should have been more upfront earlier).
Increased Challenges Faced by Abbott -Responses Needed
As indicated by its failure to have the Senate re-instate the powers of the Australian Building & Construction Commission, and by anti-coal groups’s revealed use of legislation to stop coal projects and purporting thereby to protect “the environment”, the Abbott government is facing increased difficulties in implementing existing policies, let alone maintain policies which have hitherto been widely accepted as important to on-going development and employment. As Greg Sheridan points out (see “Shutting the door to growth” below), “Australia has created a public–political culture in which the avenues to block something from happening are endless”. More strictly, it is that certain groups, not Australia itself, which have created this culture and are now actively moving to apply it.
Religion Drives Terrorists
Over recent days, following the jihad call by an IS spokesman last Tuesday there have been four major terrorist attacks overseas and... Read More