Institute for Private Enterprise » Syria

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

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

Media/Film Bias Continues Apace

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Negative Perspective on Syria

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

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

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

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

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

Romney Attacks Trump Too

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

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

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

No Iran Nuclear Deal, Tax Cuts

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

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

Israel’s Discovery of Secret Iranian Nuclear Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coalition’s Neglected Policies

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

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

Energy Policy& China & Israel

Des Moore — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:21:18 +0000

The distribution of this edition of my Commentary has been changed in order to widen it and to correct some who have effectively dropped out over the past couple of years. However some of those added to my distribution list may not now wish to receive it. If so, please return my Commentary and I will drop them off the list.

China has Become Communised

Last night my wife and I attended an AIIA function to hear Rowan Callick speak about China under Xi. His analysis was truly alarming (see Callick on China). It seems that China is now run by the Communist Party even more than it was under Mao. I asked C what influence the military has on policy. He said that the previous military heads had been sacked and were replaced by those who were educated in the Communist line and this applies more or less across the board, including in the media. Just about every important organisation has been “communised”. At universities there are watchers who report on any dissidents and, at a recent discussion attended by students, seven cameras had been installed.

It is hoped that the AIIA will be able to send the text of this address to a wider audience.

Some Implications of NEG

Today’s meeting between Commonwealth and State energy ministers takes place as the independent Climate Study Group (CSG) publishes an analysis by experts which challenges the basis of the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) on which the Turnbull government seeks the States agreement. Astonishingly given the lengthy time since it was first proposed, this meeting is not the “final” meeting: that will take place in August.

The Australian has published the CSG analysis as a half-page advertisement on page 5 (see Climate Change Cycles). Richard Morgan is to be congratulated for forming the CSG, which in its third edition concludes that

“Australia must develop a strategy that promotes reliable, efficient coal power stations including, if competitive, unsubsidised renewable energy which covers the full cost of meeting rated dispatchable generation. Our industries will then have reliable and globally competitive power costs that they require to compete in world markets and at the same time improve living standards”.

The CSG acknowledges that, following a period when global temperatures fell, there has been a gradual increase over the past 150 years but this has occurred “independent of CO2 levels”. It also points out that models based on the burning of fossil fuels have failed in their predictions of even higher temperatures and a graph of Tropical Storms and Hurricanes shows no increase in strength or frequency since 1971 (if anything a decline). Moreover, even if Australia did not stick to its target to reduce emissions by 26% by 2030, any consequential increase in global temperatures would be tiny.

This leads the CSG to draw attention to the astonishingly large increase in government expenditure on measures designed to reduce or replace emissions of CO2. Importantly, it also has a graph showing that since about 2005 Australian electricity prices have about doubled. This is the period when various measures were taken by our governments to reduce emissions and subsidise renewables to replace coal-fired sources. The CSG claims that

“the National Energy Guarantee (NEG), would still leave Australia with power costs much in excess of countries with efficient coal fired power stations. The extent to which any improvements to power costs rely on cross subsidisation from coal fired power stations and/or direct subsidies should be made public. A figure of total subsidies for the NEG of $60 billion by 2030 has been mentioned in media reports”.

This analysis confirms that the Turnbull government should not go ahead with NEG and it should institute a genuinely independent review of any such proposal.

McCrann on NEG

Terry McCrann has more directly attacked the basis of NEG with an article highlighting the deficiencies of using wind and solar power (see McCrann on Renewables). He asks whether we are “completely insane” in having invested in wind-driven capacity of 3400 MW and now paying electricity prices which run to over $100 a MWhour compared with only $20-30 a MW hour before such investment started around 2000. He predicts that Victoria and South Australia will possibly require less electricity in the 2020s as “more and more factories are shuttered as a consequence of crippling power prices”.

Increased Threats to Israel

In February the T-4 airbase near Homs in Syria was used by Iran to send an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) into Israeli territory and was shot down by the Israeli military. The Israel Defence Force revealed last Friday that its investigation concluded the Iranian drone sent from T-4 was carrying explosives and was seemingly deployed to attack an Israeli target.

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported the T-4 base housed an advanced Iranian air defense system and drone hangar, underscoring Iran’s military expansionism in Syria as Tehran helps to lead Bashar al-Assad’s successful counterinsurgency against the rebels targeting his regime.

The Jerusalem Post has reported that Israel believes that Iranian retaliation could come in the form of direct missile or drone attacks launched from Syria.

Israel has an efficient defence force but will doubtless be looking for US support if necessary. Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly been in communication with Trump about handling the possibility of a serious attack (see Threats to Attack Israel).

Turnbull & Policy Issues Here & O’Seas

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

Turnbull Survives Newspoll 30

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

Energy Policy

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

Sound like a bit of a mix up?

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

US Policy in Syria

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

Bolton’s Views on US Foreign Policy

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

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

Hungary and Immigration Policy

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

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.

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.

SSex Marriage, Taxation & Terrorism

Des Moore — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:07:11 +0000

Turnbull Confirms He’s Unsuitable as Liberal Leader

Once again, Turnbull has shown that he should not be leader of the Liberal Party. His handling of the Coalition’s policy on same sex marriage failed to recognise that the plebiscite produced substantial opposition (38.4%) to legislation allowing marriage between people of the same sex and that a proportion of those who voted Yes would also have wanted any such legislation to include provisions protecting freedom to express opposition to such marriages for religious reasons alone. Other opponents not necessarily based on religion simply wanted “marriage” to remain as a relationship between a man and a woman and that, whether between relationships of the same gender or even between a man and a woman but not formally married, should be expressed as “partnerships” or in similar vein.

Far from being a “victory for Australia”, as Turnbull claimed, the passage of the legislation accentuated division amongst those in his own party and many unspoken outside it. As Paul Kelly wrote yesterday, “this is one of the greatest defeats for conservatives in many decades” (see Kelly on Protecting Religious Views). Some would see this as one of the aims of Turnbull.

The Australian’s political editor Dennis Shanahan concluded that “the cold, hard fact for Turnbull is that while the same-sex marriage legislation was passed overwhelmingly, on the issue of extra religious freedoms, which he had promised during the campaign, he was isolated from the vast majority of his Coalition colleagues. More than 80 Coalition members in both houses spoke and voted in favour of religious freedom amendments. The 61.6 per cent vote in favour of same-sex marriage in the postal survey meant it was going to become law; the remaining issue, and the focus of this week’s parliamentary debate, was religious protection” (see Shanahan on Turnbull’s Failure on Religious Protection).

Shanahan argues that, as the PM who passed same sex marriage legislation, Turnbull is “working towards improved numbers in the next Newspoll survey, the last before Christmas”. That survey, presumably on Monday 18 December, will attract more than usual interest.

True, the Turnbull government has established a review of religious freedom by a panel of four headed by former Attorney General Phillip Ruddock to report early next year. But this will be conducted in circumstances where the same sex marriage legislation has already been passed and, thus, where supporters of appropriate protective amendments will carry much less weight in the debate next year. There is also no indication that it will consider protection of critics whose views are not based on religion per se.

It is unclear when Turnbull’s “victory” will be forgotten but as PM he remains hanging on a thread.

Do Company Tax Collections Accurately Reflect Tax Liability

Against a background in which many other countries have lower company tax rates, a major lowering of Australia’s rates has been an important policy objective of the Turnbull government but, reflecting Labor’s opposition in the Senate, has been unsuccessful. On the other side, considerable attention has been given to reports that Tax Commissioner Jordan has been conducting a “crusade” against multinational companies which appear to pay taxes which are small when account is taken of their large activity in Australia. Last March, the ACTU president told the Press Club that 679 companies “pay not one cent of tax” but omitted to mention that unions pay no tax.

In the Weekend Australian, Terry McCrann suggested that, through poor public presentations, Jordan has “polluted the debate” about assessing company tax payments while his Deputy Jeremy Hirschhorn appears to be making “strong positive statements “. In a recent statement, Hirschhorn said the community should have confidence that the largest companies are being required to pay the right amount of tax on their Australian profits, and “most do so voluntarily. Australia has one of the strongest corporate tax systems in the world”.

McCrann also draws attention to Hirschhorn’s “focus on the number of groups which paid either no tax or small amount of tax relative to gross income” and, in consequence, “does notice the rubbish published in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald and broadcast by the ABC. According to McCrann, Hirschhorn stressed three things that it was “important to remember”.

Corporate income tax is payable on profits, not gross income.
In any given year a significant percentage of even the largest companies make losses, not just for tax purposes, but also for accounting purposes.
(The data) reflects the tax returns as lodged, and does not reflect subsequent ATO compliance activity”.

This is an important assessment by McCrann and, for those interested, is worth reading in full.

Terrorism and Counterterrorism

The recent terrorist attempt at killing British PM Theresa May, and the report that over 20,000 in the UK are regarded as potential terrorists and as such are being watched, was followed here by a 20 year old being subjected to two terrorism related charges for intending to “use a firearm to shoot and kill as many people as he could in Federation Square on New Year’s Eve” The man charged had also been under watch for two year.

It was timely therefore that I was invited by AIJAC ‘s Dr Colin Rubenstein to attend a lunch last Friday at which an American expert on terrorism and counterterrorism, Dr Mark Levitt, spoke and answered questions. He is a Fellow and Director at The Washington Institute and has written extensively in a wide range of journals and newspapers.

He spent considerable time on what might happen in Syria and after the “defeat” of ISIS in Iraq. That seems to be resulting in the establishment of mini-Isis’s including in Libya, where there are now three “governments”. Part of what he had to say is reflected in a recent address he gave to a United Nations Committee on Counterterrorism (see Levitt on Terrorism & Counter). Note in particular

In the US “terrorist threats from home grown violent extremists of all ideological stripes have increased significantly”.
It is critical that preventing and countering violent extremism “address the full gamut of extremist ideologies radicalizing individuals and mobilizing them to violence”. In the United States, that means “focusing not only on Islamist ideology and narratives but also on white supremacist, far-right, and far-left ideologically inspired violence.”
“Efforts to address Islamist violent extremists will be more effective as part of a comprehensive approach that addresses other types of extremists as well”.
“ Working with local community groups is important”.

Our Power Bills

Des Moore — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 11:10:57 +0000

Is Turnbull Capable of Determining an Energy Policy?

Today’s Australian says that the Renewable Energy Target (RET) of 23.5% by 2020 will not be changed as part of what is described as Turnbull’s overhaul of energy policy (see Renewable Energy Target). That target was reduced by Abbott when he was PM and the recent National Party Conference voted to “repudiate the central finding of the Finkel review for a clean energy target and eliminate subsidies for renewable to maximise the difference with Labor over surging power bills”, and hence to reject the Finkel proposed clean energy target of 42% of renewable energy by 2030. However, it appears that the halt to increasing the RET mainly reflects the mounting cost of the subsidies, which ran to a remarkable $2 billion just last year and which may already have reached the point where a continuation of the scheme would exceed the RET target without any new investment. There is a reference in today’s report to the likelihood of allowing more subsidies to those whose projects have not been completed. In other words the taxpayer is handing out money to a badly constructed scheme, not to mention the bad decision to have one at all before properly reviewing the basic need for it.

The National Party Conference vote also refers to “surging power bills”. That has led Shorten to claim that during the time the Coalition has been in office (since 2013) the average cost of electricity to households in Sydney has increased by $1000. However, while Energy Consumers Australia (which is part of the Environment Department) is reported as saying Turnbull is correct in claiming Shorten is wrong, the latest web Update of Energy Consumers does not extend beyond January 2017 and would exclude the very sharp recent increases. My AGL electricity bill for September (which arrived two days ago) is 40 per cent higher than it was a year ago when calculated on a daily basis. That is an increase of $360 per quarter or about $1440 a year if continued. Further, contrary to Turnbull’s recent announcement that electricity retailers have agreed to be more explanatory, AGL offered no justification.

Separately, the ACCC head is reported as classifying AGL as a monopoly but being over-ruled by the Competition Tribunal. There is a strong case for Turnbull to insist on another inquiry (AGL’s share price has risen). Reports of a survey also indicate that very few believe policies which are current or promised by each major party will lead to lower prices. Indeed, even if AGL’s Liddell generator is bribed to continue beyond 2022 (AGL has said publicly that it wouldn’t), each party promises to further reduce the use of coal-fired generators and prices must increase further. Turnbull’s attempt to devise an energy policy by appointing Finkel as Chief Scientist and commissioning him to report on that policy even though he has no background in climate policy, is to put it mildly a policy in total disarray.

Andrew Bolt rightly says that Turnbull “can win the next election just by fighting Labor’s global-warming crusaders on electricity prices. In fact, he and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg have banked on it. But Turnbull is wrong: the way he and Frydenberg are fighting — timidly and erratically — is backfiring” (see Bolt on Turnbull). Turnbull and his advisers have made so many bad decisions on energy policy that he is adding to his polling problem.

Iran and North Korea

The testing by NK of missiles capable of carrying a nuclear weapon (or worse) has been subjected to enormous public attention and questioning in the media, with the latest missile this morning landing in the Japan sea and being accompanied by a statement from an NK authority to the effect that Japan should be sunk too. This will add to the case for a pre-emptive response.

But what has been neglected has been the threat from Iran. The attached article by an Israeli policy analyst at Melbourne-based AIJAC draws attention to several aspects of the mounting threat from there, including the report that Iran may have obtained 19 advanced ballistic missiles from NK, its hosting of the head of Iran’s Parliament (sic), and its policy of establishing greater influence regionally, including in Iraq/Syria (see AIJAC on Iran/NK Threat) The author concludes that “If there is one lesson from North Korea, it is that failure to act now to halt Tehran’s progress will have serious repercussions later.Iran’s hegemonic ambitions and destructive activities already extend well beyond its borders. Adding nuclear weapons to the mix will set up a dangerous future for what is already the world’s most fragile and unstable region”.

Shann On Improved Econ Outlook

Ed Shann, who is one of Australia’s best economic analyst, writes in today’s Herald Sun that “China is booming again” and that the world economy looks healthier than for some time. This assessment is encouraging and contrasts with other rather gloomy ones (see Shann on China/World Outlook).

EU & Australia Free Trade Agreement?

I was amused to read yesterday that, in responding to the possible adverse effects from Brexit, the President of the EU said the EU should strike new trade deals and “we are asking that we open up negotiations with Australia and New Zealand”. This after many years of discriminating against imports from Australia!

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”.