text:
Team Australia: Leader of the Free World
In pursuit of a values driven foreign policy, Australia isn't blindly following the United States, it's taking the lead. Becoming an enhanced partner of NATO is only the latest example of an approach that has taken us far afield from our core strategic national interests, writes Adam Lockyer.
Over the past year, the Abbott Government has set Australia's strategic and defence policy on a dangerous trajectory.
Abbott is a true believer in the notion that Australia's security can best be found in a favourable global order. That is, the global dominance of Western values, in general, and individualism, capitalism, liberalism and democracy, specifically. To that end, any challenge to these Western values must be fiercely resisted, whether it is from Islamists in the Middle East or authoritarian regimes in Russia or China.
This foreign policy tradition has a long history in Australia. Many in Australia believed that it was within the global order built and defended by the British Empire that Australia was to find its security. British power and values created a favourable strategic environment. Following this logic, it made sense for Australians to die by the thousands defending British interests in the Middle East and Europe during World War I.
To date, however, Australia has had few prime ministers who have drunk the Western values Kool-Aide to the extent that Tony Abbott has. Even John Howard, who heavily leveraged shared values in forming his foreign policy, had a healthy respect for political pragmatism and a strong sense of the national interest. At present, these two latter elements are missing from the Abbott Government's defence and foreign policy.
Unlike some have argued, the Government has not blindly followed the United States into war in Iraq or in applying sanctions against Russia. Instead, the Government's rhetoric has consistently been out in front of the Obama Administration's official line. On both fronts, the Government has been eager to get into these brawls.
In addition, the Australian Government has been investing heavily in building stronger security relationships with those countries it views as having similar values to Australia. One of Abbott's first diplomatic moves was to ordain Japan as Australia's "best friend in Asia", Japan being the Asian country believed to be the most Westernised - in a cultural and ideological sense.
The Government is also preparing to strengthen Australia's security relationship with India with an expected deal on uranium exports. The Australia-India security relationship is likely to continue, if not accelerate, in the future. The Prime Minister has spoken at length about India's shared values with Australia and that it is "not only the emerging democratic super power. It's also the emerging English-speaking super power."
Further afield, this week Australia will become one of NATO's "enhanced partners". This move is designed to tie Australia even more closely with countries that share its values and ideology. The change in Australia's status in Brussels will do little to directly improve Australia's security. But, that is not the intention. It is designed to make it easier for Australia to join with the Western European nations in the defence of its values around the world.
At its core, there is little practical difference between the current Government foreign policy doctrine and that of the neo-conservative moment that characterised George W Bush's presidency. Both believe that democracy and Western liberalism are the superior organisational principles of society and these values should be defended around the world, by force if necessary.
Needless to say, Abbott's neo-conservative foreign policy doctrine is potentially extremely dangerous to Australia's interests. In his book Battlelines, Abbott pondered war with communist China, arguing that:
Led by America, most of the world would reject any attempt by China forcibly to reclaim Taiwan. In Australia's case, this would not be choosing America over China but democracy over dictatorship.
Shared values are not synonymous with strategic and national interests. In fact, they are completely unrelated. Strategic and national interests are the basis for sound foreign policy making, not shared values. At times, shared values and interests overlap, like in relation to the US-Australia alliance. But this is largely a coincidence and the alliance's value to both parties has fluctuated over time.
Overall, the threat of the Islamic State to Australia has been exaggerated. The Islamic State has set its sights on carving out a Caliphate in Syria, Iraq and then Jordan and Saudi Arabia, before it can even begin considering a global jihad. It is precisely this difference in strategy that caused the Islamic State to split from Al Qaeda.
The 20,000 odd Islamic State fighters should not be thought of as the German Wehrmacht storming across Europe in 1940. This small motley force has made considerable gains due to divisive sectarianism in Iraq, the lack of fighting spirit in the Iraqi government forces, and the sophisticated use of fear and intimation. They are not a direct threat to Australia.
The Australians fighting with the Islamic State are not a defence matter, but an intelligence and policing responsibility. Indeed, sweeping up returning Australian jihadists at the airport and then either charging or releasing and keeping a close eye on them is precisely what we pay ASIO $380 million a year to do.
Similarly, notwithstanding shared values, Australia has little strategic overlap of interest with either India or Japan. India and Japan have both shown interest in building a tight coalition of democracies across the Indo-Pacific region to begin the "soft" containment of China. This is in their interests. This is not in Australia's interests. Unlike India or Japan, Australia does not share a border or have territorial disputes with China.
The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are a long way from Australia. As such, Australia does not have a dog in that fight. The same can be said of the intractable Sino-India border dispute.
Why would Australia pick sides, let alone allow itself to drift towards the containment of China?
The real politik reality is that geographical - not cultural - proximity matters more to a countries' security. In Australia's case, that is first and foremost Indonesia and the countries of maritime South-East Asia. Historically, the Islamic extremism that has most threatened Australia (i.e. the Bali bombing and Jakarta Embassy bombing) has arisen from Australia's strategic neighbourhood. Other strategic trends that influence Australia's security environment, such as the rise of China and India, also affect Indonesia.
The immediate region should be considered Australia's area of primary strategic importance. Wider regional and global considerations are a distant second and third.
The rationale for picking fights in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and making better friends of Japan, India and NATO fails the strategic interests test. Especially when cast against the fact that Australia's relationship with Indonesia has taken such a beating since the Abbott Government came to power.
Adam Lockyer is a senior lecturer in security studies at Macquarie University. He is also a non-resident visiting fellow at the United States Studies Centre. View his full profile here.
Topics: unrest-conflict-and-war, defence-and-national-security, world-politics
Comments (202)
Comments for this story are closed.
04 Sep 2014 8:15:32am
Is all of this in the national interest or is it all about feeding Abbot's ego?
04 Sep 2014 8:53:09am
Naaa, it's all about diverting attention from Abbott's other problems, or, is this theory crediting the PM with too much intelligence?
04 Sep 2014 9:05:06am
tony's war agenda smacks of hysteria, anything to divert attention away from the budget mess
And where will all the money come, they are telling us we are going broke
Embassy in Kiev. Just to poke a stick at the bear's toes?
Cost of combat troops, flying sorties in the mid east, the body bags and PTSD in the future, all a human and economic cost
Not intelligent, just political cunning
04 Sep 2014 10:33:18am
Interesting question about Abbott's intelligence, Mick.
I don't think he's a blithering idiot, but I'd say he's a man of "narrow intelligence". It'll become apparent soon enough that Abbott and Australia is a minor player in these frolics and his overinflated rhetoric about bettering mankind will leave him looking quite dopey if, as is usually the case, these conflicts debase the humanity on both sides.
And when these issues are resolved or become dormant, Abbott will still be as ill-quipped as he is today to deal with more the pressing concerns for Australia; the region and Indonesia in particular.
And like all the other problems for Abbott, this is a problem of his own making.
dubious the third:
04 Sep 2014 4:05:31pm
Abbott's smart enough to know his job description is to serve the Monarch of Britain.
There are some serious questions that need to asked about these matters however.
Even when the author writes of Abbott and George the lesser
"Both believe that democracy and Western liberalism are the superior organisational principles of society and these values should be defended around the world, by force if necessary".
Firstly, do they really want democracy in other parts of the world, or do they just want ease of access for multinational corporations to exploit other places?
Secondly, if indeed, Australia is a democracy, and I have my doubts since I've lived under the same unelected Head of State all my life, just when did democracy occur in Australia?
04 Sep 2014 5:55:21pm
dubious, go and live somewhere else....then you might be able to make an informed comment regarding our democratic system.
No doubt you believe a republican model would have provided us with a better , more continuous system of democracy.
dubious the third:
04 Sep 2014 6:48:11pm
A Republican model may work for people who have millennia long connection to the lands they have it on, but for settler states such as Australia, if the US is anything to go by, Republics seem to be just like the present arrangements.
I would much prefer to live in a Reconciled Australia, where the people with millennia long connections to these lands are respected as the Sovereigns of these lands, rather than that European warlord family that stole the Sovereignty with some paperwork done over in the UK, making themselves the Sovereign without even visiting these lands.
Perhaps then, we would have more respect for other Sovereign Nations.
dr dig:
04 Sep 2014 5:20:51pm
Have you bothered reflecting on your own intelligence? That is a rhetorical question because I am sure you have and the conclusion you draw is not doubt an eminent one.
Intelligence is a subjective construct at any rate so you are of course welcome to continue to believe in your own superiority as long as it serves your perceived interests.
04 Sep 2014 6:38:16pm
Abbott's a fool in the mould of Dubya Bush. He'll have us at war with Russia and China in the belief we are serving our US masters "shared values" but the American military/political class first and foremost see US "interests", not values.
Howard was the same. One of the things that still puzzles me is the speech Howard gave to the National Press Club justifying his decision to join the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. One of the things he talked about was the "people munching machine" that Saddam had for throwing his enemies into. His eyes were sweeping side to side, never finding eye contact with any other person, a sure sign that he was lying. When Abbott is lying, he makes a "pushing away" motion with his hands, as if he's warding off the accusations.
I looked at the official transcript of the 2003 Howard speech several years later and all mention of the "people munching machine" was missing. I guess those sentences went the same way as the WMDs that they hunted for all over Iraq but never found a hint of. No sign of the "people munching machine" that was used to inflame us either.
The thing about Abbott though is his unique agenda of reconnecting us to Britain. This is his idea and his alone, not shared with any other Liberal politician, except to a degree with Howard, but even Howard would never revert to the crumby sycophantic knighthood idea. The contempt we see by old diggers for the British aristocrat officers in the current slew of tele-series commemorating the Great War is palpable.
04 Sep 2014 7:05:26pm
Reconnecting with Britain is a better idea than trying to connect with a bunch of disparate, incompatible cultures foisted upon us by the utopian dreamers peddling multiculturalism.
Mike P:
05 Sep 2014 12:17:30am
Well said Ray S. My feelings toward Sir Tony "comb-over" Dum Dum have gone from sceptical to feeling absolutely embarrassed that he represents Australia on the world stage.
The sooner that we the voter send him to oblivion the better. Just a deceitful embarrassment to the LNP and people of Oz.
05 Sep 2014 8:08:06am
Yeah! Abbott's other problems like killing the carbon tax, killing the mining tax, stopping the boats, an FTA with Japan and restoring our relationship with Indonesia. (conspicuously missed by the author.)
The current content on The Drum is so biased I don't know why the ABC even bothers to pretend to be impartial anymore. We even have that left wing wind bag Jonathan Green yesterday try and construct the argument that because the government had enjoyed such rapid success on it's stated agenda that this was somehow a cause for great concern.
12 months ago the left we're devastated that Abbott had won power. Now it absolutely kills them that he is enjoying success. The fact that this government has not descended into the completely dysfunctional madness and self destructive chaos of its predecessor is especially galling to them. They watch enviously and contemptuously as a man they judged and branded to be a fool and an incompetent proves to be the exact opposite. Even worse is the fact that he is now gaining recognition on the world stage.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 8:59:44am
Ego of course. Remember how he made light of Labor's involvement in international affairs and Rudd's traveling overseas? Now you can't keep him in Australia and he wants Australia involved in every scrape around the world.
Besides the fact that his actions are hypocritical to those that he possessed in opposition the question is this what Australia should be doing.
The problem I have is first and foremost we should only being doing what we can afford. If we have to make cuts to education, health, our youth and elderly how can we justify these involvements? The only way would be a special tax to pay for these excursions.
Then you look at whether or not we are a vital element in these different conflicts? I guess it might help Obama to have a lap dog but it doesn't, in my opinion help us in our region.
At that is where we should be placing our attention. As some leader once said we should be more Indonesia and less Europe.
I wonder who that person was and what happened to him?
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 9:22:46am
Ego is driving this process. I would suggest our involvment in the Ukrain is a long term economic calcuation. With Russia currently the largest supplier of energy to Europe, being able to force apart this relationship provides Australia with an opportunity to sell energy into Europe and allow Europe to decouple itself from the unstable (in a sense of maintaining borders) Russian country.
Somethign like this would be valuable to Australia - this goes beyond ego, well beyond ego.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 10:05:54am
Yep a death wish.
Do you really think there won't be consequences? Which country is one of the few allies of Russia? China.
If any countries should be This is such an overreach as to be on the verge of lunacy.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 10:39:00am
A death wish is pure hyperbole and I highly doubt that China is internally stable enough to be able to wage war in support of Russia - further it's ability to project force beyond the south China Sea is questionable.
India is a member of the BRICS, but Indian has benefited in Uranium where Russia has lost out for us.
We've already face consequences and recevied the full swathe of economic sanctions the Russians can manifest on us.
There really isn't any overreach and Russia is not goign to launch int's nuclear Arsenal at us for placing sanctions on them.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 11:12:02am
wage war depends on what you mean, no but which country buys a lot of our resources? And which same country is an ally of Russia?
What in gods name makes you think that Australia has a place in solving the problems of Europe?
Have you been paying attention to how much they actually want to deal with their problems? And we some how are going to help?
The answers to both the middle east and to Europe is political. It is their region. They know the issues it is theirs to solve.
Pay attention to our own turf we've shed enough blood in Europe and for the yanks.
04 Sep 2014 11:52:06am
Once again, I agree with the yank. We did not create the problems that Europe and the Middle East face; they were created by Europe and the USA. We should not be involved.
Many will not agree with me about this but if Australian politician's are to talk about the Middle East they should do so in terms that emphasise the unbalanced support that Europe, the USA and, unfortunately, Australia give to Israel. The Palestinians are not all terrorists and I have no doubt that the vast majority of them would welcome a little support from a Western country, even one as insignificant as Australia. Such support would substantially protect Australia from ME terrorists but not from ratbags like the Islamic State, which may turn out to be a self-limiting disease anyway.
04 Sep 2014 2:50:55pm
EMH, Palestine is a community and culture of terrorism - virtually ISIS. Why would you want Australia to support that over a democratic liberal Israel? Palestinians have shown no real desire to stop using extreme violence as their primary means of conflict resolution, or compromise, or moderate their naked genocidal goals. Hate is a way of life for them and seen as religious piety. Such support would do little to protect us anyway; Islamists don't hate what we do as much as hate what we stand for - it's an ideology so it misses the point to assume rationality. In any case you are talking of appeasement. Why do the Left support villains so readily?
Eric the Echidna:
04 Sep 2014 5:31:08pm
APM, you have made some outrageous statements against the Palestinians. So I suggest you contemplate a couple of points:
Who is occupying whose land and continues to steal more of it?
Who engaged in terrorism, ethnic cleansing - with a policy of cold blooded murder of civilians - to acquire someone else's land?
The Real Al:
04 Sep 2014 9:07:52pm
APM's comment is quite valid, terrorism has been widely used by Palestinians for decades. There have been countless terror acts committed by various Palestinians groups that involved the "cold blooded murder of civilians". Do you have any evidence to dispute this well documented fact?
Instead of posting riddles, why don't you simply state your opinion?
05 Sep 2014 12:15:01am
I may be wrong, but its my recollection that Israel has only reacted to attacks by various Islamic countries.
Even in that latest conflict if Palestine really wanted to stop the retalitary attacks by Israel all they had to do was to stop the Hamas rocket attacks in their own territory.
04 Sep 2014 9:38:26pm
The democratic Israelis that confiscate land that belongs to Jordan who are prepared to give it to the Palestinians so that they can have there own country or Keep the ones in the Gaza in what amounts to a huge prison those ones or the Israelis that want a genuine solution .
Do you mean the Israelis who build settlements in the East Bank on land that is meant for the Palestinian State .
04 Sep 2014 10:42:44am
Unfortunately Russia is a significant importer of Australian produce.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 11:08:52am
Only if by significant you mean less than $2b of approx $625b worth of annual exports- putting this in context China is worth over $100b and PNG is worth $2.4b.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 12:21:06pm
I'll repeat this question because it really is at the heart of things ... What in gods name makes you think that Australia has a place in solving the problems of Europe?
04 Sep 2014 1:10:01pm
So Yank, Australia should not have participated in WW1 or WW2, or had Peace Keepers in Bosnia, Palestine, Somalia, Cyprus and the Sudan either?
(after all, that is your logic)
Taking your isolationist approach we would not participate in any conflict, ever - unless it actively threatened us.
What a proud nation we would be; sitting here with no allies, and no friends.
Erick Quang:
04 Sep 2014 10:43:51pm
It seems you have made a slight mistake rob, we would have one friend ,his name is Jack as in im allright Jack , stuff you . And the thing is, most of these jacks seem to have great lives ,must be something in that for everybody.
05 Sep 2014 1:34:56am
Australia almost got wiped out by supporting the English in Europe. We had to rush the troops home to protect our own interests and the British were no help at all.
Is it because our PM was born in the UK that he has some special affinity with the place and is afraid to let go.
We need to chart our own course irrespective of England- it has been 100 years since we gained independance- getting our own allies based our interests.
05 Sep 2014 5:24:06am
we would be ,probably,in a much better position than we are now...
Let there be no doubt, we are destined to be,as we have been, the quarry and the food bowl for the rest of the world..period...
the US practised the art of non involvement for years and prospered..remember their ww1 began in 1917 and ww2 began in 1942...
that led to them becoming a super power...
sure, they joined in at the end or when they had to....and that is what we should have done...
Abbotts problem is that he is a toady, trying to do not our part but "above and beyond' sometimes in a spectacular fashion...
Howard as similar...who can forget the $1 billion donated to assist in the Indonesian tsunami...surely, overkill...
maybe Abbott should just cool it....for all our sakes...( after all, the new Lib leader will have to cope with the mess.)
05 Sep 2014 5:44:16am
Respectfully beg to differ, you cannot compare WWs to these conflicts. this is a mess created by the US and UK, and now after the wars they are borke, and I don't want OZ to spend our money on some sh*t that we never started nor had any underlying interest.
why are we taking dictation from US? is beyond me, they didnt even ask for it and our Govt. is like ... I am in !!!
our foriegn policy is not matured enough to be jumping in front of everyone else. we have seen that proof of that already in the Ukraine.
remember how they say in plane, put your own mask first before helping out the children? yeah ... get your house in order first before you go sort out someone else.
05 Sep 2014 8:15:54am
maybe even with proper defence strategies....
probably even with real friends...
Look at the Swiss, look at the Swedes....
,bout time we stood on our own size 11,s...particularly now we are more than a middle power....
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 1:57:09pm
We are a non-pemanent member of the UN security council, whose job, amongst others, is to maintain international peace and security.
Unless you disagree with my statement of fact I think that answers the questions why Australia, as part of an international community, is responsible for ensuring peace.
04 Sep 2014 2:44:39pm
The problem is that we are NOT "ensuring peace", we are picking sides based on political ties.
Anyone with half a brain recognises the immorality of supporting Ukraine in bombing their own people while supporting "rebels" in Syria, opposing "rebels" in Ukraine, supporting Israel bombing Palestinians while opposing Assad bombing rebels in Syria.
These are NOT peaceful choices.
05 Sep 2014 12:32:10am
We are picking the side that wasn't involved in killing our countrymen (or countrypersons for the lovies).
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 2:57:55pm
Good join the armed forces and go blow some one up.
We, Australians, have a responsibility to our region. We have a responsibility to our poor, our women, our native born races.
We are doing a hash of a job in those areas and until we can show some pride in how we treat those people I suggest we stay put.
Australians have done their share of harm just ask the Middle East, and Vietnam.
05 Sep 2014 4:32:10am
Is Vietnam not in our region then?
Our poor, our women and our native born races (how many are there?) do rather better here than just about anywhere else in the world Yank. But I understand that you're all upset since the last election, so you'll clutch at anything.
Chris L:
04 Sep 2014 3:32:27pm
I agree, Mr Chow, that our membership in the UN security council requires our involvement... but the whole point of the UN is a United Nations approach rather than charging in and hoping everyone else is on the same page.
05 Sep 2014 5:25:43am
maybe we would be better employed meeting the spirit of our International obligations regarding refugees,eh....
or is it only when the whim strikes us.....
04 Sep 2014 2:07:09pm
Yank. Ask the question as many times as you want. It's already been answered.
Russia's ambitions will continue to grow until they are checked. When they sense weakness from their neighbours, they steal their land. When they are confronted with resistance, they halt. This is how Russia has always operated, as far back as Soviet or Tsarist days.
That is why we have a place in this conflict. If Russia is annexing other countries, they are a global threat. If we don't help Europe solve their problems today, Russia will eventually become Australia's problem tomorrow.
The Eggman:
04 Sep 2014 7:24:39pm
Are you suggesting a domino effect? If yes, how do you expect the dominos to fall - will Russia conquer Europe, then America, then Asia, then Australia?
Because I reckon the only Russian invaders who stand a chance of reaching Australia after a war with NATO will be blown down here as nuclear fallout along with the rest of the northern hemisphere.
Doomsday scenarios aside, I don't see how Russia represents a threat to Australia or our interests so I think Abbott is behaving very erratically by being so aggressive towards them - I find this kind of instability very disturbing in someone with so much power and I'm more worried about that than I am about the Russians.
04 Sep 2014 10:05:58pm
Eggman, you've fallen for a basic fallacy. The MAD doctrine only applies to nuclear war, not conventional war.
Imagine that you were Europe and you suddenly saw Russia's armies marching West to unify the entire continent under a new Russian Empire.
You have two choices: Launch the nuclear missiles and end the world. Or sit back and let Russia take over, with the hope that one day the occupation will end. Not a difficult choice.
That's the sad reality. Europe isn't worth ending the world for. If Russia can slowly shave Ukraine away by degrees, they can do the same to Europe, slice by slice.
The Eggman:
05 Sep 2014 8:35:28am
Zing, MAD applies if both sides believe that they would both be destroyed if they go to war. But who's to say that all of the major powers believe this is the case, or even that they always have?
There is no guarantee that a war between NATO and Russia would remain conventional. Not when players from both sides have plans for a mixed nuclear/conventional war. Once the gloves come off things will get out of hand pretty fast.
Besides, I'm not convinced that NATO would lose a conventional war against Russia. In fact, it seems more likely to me that NATO would win - the risk then being that the retreating Russian Army might try out a nuclear scorched earth defense.
Or maybe one of the sides would use battlefield nukes straight off the bat - maybe some of those neutron bombs that are supposed to be more effective against Russian tanks.
Any way you cut it there is a risk of nuclear war when nuclear armed countries go to war with each other and I reckon that risk will increase with desperation rather than decrease.
dr dig:
04 Sep 2014 5:24:17pm
So the yank, leaving the reference to God's name aside, why does or has Australia had any interest in conflicts outside of Australia at all, including WWI & II? Do you think that was unjustified too?
05 Sep 2014 12:28:38am
When that country is involved in the killing of Australians.
04 Sep 2014 11:53:16am
No, actually Russia is not a terribly significant importer of Australian produce, just as Mr Chow pointed out.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 3:03:00pm
True but their only real ally is.
How many schools or hospitals do we close so we can fight these wars?
05 Sep 2014 5:28:54am
tell that to the Australian farmers who just lost $400 million....
dr dig:
04 Sep 2014 5:22:08pm
What do you mean by significant? Is it greater than 1% of exports in any particular category?
05 Sep 2014 12:25:12am
Russia, now there's a nice peace loving country that we shouldn't offend for fear of lost trade. Every country should refuse to trade anything with Russia until they get their arses out of their neighbours back yard.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 4:34:41pm
Mr Chow, while you are happy to help out NATO did you realise that NATO counties are not happy to help themselves?
Only 4 NATO countries are spending the required 2% of their GDP on defence.
And yet you want us to short change our young elderly and poor to help them sort out their messes?
04 Sep 2014 11:47:28am
I strongly agree with the yank. Australia should not be involved in faraway wars when there is so much to do in our own region. We are a small player internationally and I fear that Abbott's activities will both distract us from the tasks we need to undertake and increase our exposure to terrorism from those faraway places as well as from regional terrorists.
Australia has already lost people to senseless partisan violence. Let it not happen again because it is the innocent that are punished by terrorists, not the guilty.
dr dig:
04 Sep 2014 5:29:03pm
Why the distinction between faraway and near wars.
If they are not on our soil then they are not on our soil.
I fail to see why the actual location of a foreign conflict is of relevance in the seemingly ever-diminishing spatial parameters of our globe.
As always in these sort of unthinking arguments, it fails the logical test of where do you draw the line on what is acceptable and what isn't.
05 Sep 2014 5:30:29am
what have we done,plan to do, or have ever done to assist the Palestinians???
04 Sep 2014 12:02:03pm
Certainly ego.He wants to think he is a world statesman.Latest example is his proposed trip to India to sign the Uranium Agreement..Surely that's a Job for the Trade Minister,
04 Sep 2014 12:48:17pm
It isn't ego that drives Abbott, its ideology.
Abbott's entire policy agenda, both foreign and domestic, is driven by his moral and ethical perspectives on how he believes the world 'should be'. His viewpoint reflects the archetypical conservative WASP mindset. The fact that he withdrew from the seminary isn't a reflection of the fact that his beliefs are not a significant driver of his personal agenda, they are demonstrative only of his realisation that there were aspects to the religious lifestyle that he could not meet. The fact that he CONTEMPLATED the seminary is more reflective of his beliefs.
As a consequence, we find not only that many of the policies he promotes are out of sync with more liberal (small 'l') values, but the fact that those policies are values-driven means that he is unable to negotiate on them. Negotiation is pragmatic. Values are ideological. For Abbott to surrender ground on values-based policy is to undermine his own self-image.
The risk here is that politics is based upon the pragmatic path of achieving what you believe is 'right' by finding compromise. Ideology doesn't allow compromise.
The irony here is that we are seeing an ideologically-driven to the rise of fundamentalism. Perhaps someone should hand the man a mirror...
05 Sep 2014 4:24:17am
So we should only do what we can afford eh Yank? So I presume you voted against Labor at the last election then?
05 Sep 2014 8:28:56am
On the issue of overseas trips, why is Sir Anthony always travelling during parliament sitting weeks?
04 Sep 2014 11:22:28am
It's most definitely in our national interests to uphold international law.
Whether it be Putin's encroachment on a sovereign nation's borders or IS human rights abuses in northern Iraq, Abbott is right to call for punitive action against those who breach the most basic conventions.
Doing nothing only emboldens perpetrators, encouraging further abuse.
Globalisation means nothing if countries large and small can't pull together to ensure basic standards of decency and order.
QC Bob:
04 Sep 2014 12:12:44pm
To be effective in this you must be even handed. The US "invades" sovereign territory regularly with drones etc. Where's the sanctions?
Israel has been know to conduct "land grabs". Where's the sanctions?
"Doing nothing only emboldens perpetrators, encouraging further abuse."- This sentence describes Israel perfectly and the US for that matter re their drone program.
And yet still we wonder why places like China (human rights Vs offshore processing), Malaysia (deforestation Vs logging in Tasmania and degradation of the Barrier Reef) and Russia (Crimea Vs the West Bank and Australia's response to both) ignore our hand wringing?
I totally understand why because I also have very little time for hypocrites!
04 Sep 2014 1:22:52pm
The consistency argument only goes so far.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't act to prevent an atrocity in country B because we failed to act in country A?
Should governments act consistently? Yes.
QC Bob:
04 Sep 2014 3:16:53pm
We have the ADF or Australian Defense Force. They were formed for defense purposes, not to react to any atrocity anywhere in the world. May deploy to Asia/ Pacific at best. Defense as apposed to expeditionary fighting force.
If Australians are truly abhorred with what is happening in the ME, then why aren't we sharing our concerns with our nearest neighbour, which also happens to be the largest Muslim nation? Surely consulting with Indonesia in matters concerning Islam would be beneficial in our dual relations, with joint co-operation with Indonesia being a desirable outcome for Australia.
As for Ukraine, absolutely nothing to do with us and cheering from the sidelines whilst pointing fingers of blame does nothing except devalue the office of Australian Prime Minister.
It's the well being of society that needs attention. Australian society. That's the Australian federal governments job and they are failing. See this sabre rattling for the distraction that it is regarding Abbott's focus on it.
04 Sep 2014 4:10:13pm
Not quite.
Our defence relies on:
1. Our alliance with the US, and
2. A stable global environment.
To achieve <1> we need to support the US when appropriate.
To achieve <2> we need to support the global institutions and norms.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 4:38:37pm
What happened to the PM that said more Indonesia and less Europe?
And all the LNP supporters that banged on about Rudd's and Gillard traveling over to Europe? Where is your indignation now?
Where is the cries about the expense of Labor's travel?
When at the very height of our supposed budget emergency we are spending millions far away from our shores.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
QC Bob:
04 Sep 2014 5:46:18pm
As you can read in the below ABC link, Australian's love affair with everything USA is waning.
The key words in your first point is "when appropriate. At the moment we just blindly follow. Will we jump in if China has a spat with Japan? Sure will even though neither the USA or Australia would be threatened directly. Not really a defence treaty then is it (mind you we have one with our "Besty Friend" in Asia too)
Point #2 we are failing miserably with the debacle which is our offshore detention policy. Transferring people on the high seas to a foreign navy was just disgusting.
Here's the link
05 Sep 2014 9:18:50am
Our nearest neighbour is Papua New Guinea. Hardly Moslem at all.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 3:22:54pm
"Should governments act consistently? Yes." ... if our involvement in these conflicts is so necessary where is the money going to come from?
You happy to up your taxes to pay for a war but not for our young? Or elderly? Or our sick?
How absolutely hypocritical to want to go fight a war while telling the country we can't afford to help our own.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 12:29:08pm
It's most definitely in our national interests to uphold international law. ... Except of course when we want to join the USA and Britain an invade Iraq and of course those pesky asylum seekers. Oh and selling uranium to countries that having signed the international laws regarding the control of such things.
Other then those international laws sure we should support them. Oh yes and lets make sure that when we want to seel wheat to dictators that our armies are going to fight oh and I forgot lets just dump as much dredged material that we can find onto the Great Barrier Reef .. oh sorry and the agreement not to log protected forest in Tasmania.
Yep instead of those minor international agreements sure Abbott supports international agreements.
Besides that what else have the Romans given to us? ... joke.
Pastor Farian:
04 Sep 2014 4:56:14pm
As Tony is of the rabid christian right, I hope he doesn't share the delusions of those that believe Russia is foretold in the bible to be responsible for bringing on the 'end times'. I have genuine concerns this bloke thinks he is fighting a prophetic enemy, who the bible says will be defeated, and then jesus can come back.
04 Sep 2014 6:31:55pm
None of this is in the national interest. the closest this come to being in the nation interest is getting a few favors owed to us by the Americans, but provoking Russia and and diving into the Middle East while the Americans are humming and howing about whether to stick a toe in won't buy us any gratitude if it drags them in unwillingly.
04 Sep 2014 8:34:02am
When did Australia join NATO? Why is it that we are picking fights in other regions of the world.If humanitarian causes was our only concern, why not intervene in the conflicts in Africa. I don't think the Australian people were ever taken into confidence that Australia would now be part of NATO and fighting their battles when we are not even in Europe. How does the North Atlantic Treaty organisation have any relevance to Australia. Last I looked I didn't see us anywhere close to the Atlantic ocean and here we have the media led by News Ltd telling us how wonderful it is that Abbott is taking the lead in the fight. A slippery slope indeed. not dissimilar to when England dragged Australia into world wara to fight their battles in Europe, leading to the loss of so many Australian lives. Will we never learn.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 9:19:26am
REad the article - we have no joined NATO. And we have, for a long time, across successive governments maintained a special NATO relationship as a Major Non Nato Ally since 1989.
I also believe we have been involved in Africa, not all actions must be military - and in fact military is only a small aspect of security operations.
NATO biggest member is the US - and they are one of our relationship with them is one of the 5 pillars of our national security strategy.
Jay Somasundaram:
04 Sep 2014 8:38:12am
A leader is best when people barely know he exists,
when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say:
we did it ourselves
Lao Tzu
04 Sep 2014 11:00:40am
Had to look up this Lao Tzu fella. He's a beaut, a quote for every occasion. Thanks for bringing him to our attention.
Here's another one for Abbott:
If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.
One for Scott Morrison:
Treat those who are good with goodness, and also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. Be honest to those who are honest, and be also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained.
And one for all of us commenters:
Silence is a source of great strength.
04 Sep 2014 11:27:01am
"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious."
Sun Tzu
Anne L Plurabelle:
04 Sep 2014 11:57:22am
The way that can be shown is not the way!
Lao Tzu
Sounds about right.
04 Sep 2014 3:38:25pm
I am loving these Lao Tzu quotes. A tremendous thinker and prophet.
One of the terrible consequences of organised evangelical (or worse)religions is that we never hear enough of those natural prophets and inspirational wise souls whose words and deeds did not lend themselves to creating armies on the march. Come to think of it, it is amazing Christianity ever launched crusades since the spirit behind it is almost as cryptic and charismatic as Lao Tzu. But I guess it fell into the wrong hands.
04 Sep 2014 8:38:47am
This article should be required reading by a gullible section of our country. However, there are none so blind, and once again I can see Australia being involved in another self defeating war. The Labor Party have given bi-partisanship support on the Government's actions to date, without putting any question marks over them. We can only hope that this Government lasts only the one term.
04 Sep 2014 9:10:00am
Labor party is liberal party light
I suspect though that Shorten is following the leader in this regard. I doubt if he would have been as aggressive if in power, would have waited to fall in line with what ever the USA proposed
Erik the Red:
04 Sep 2014 9:40:16am
The Labor rubber stamp is to avoid an appearance of being too soft.
In the early stages of sending us to war the politicians all want to talk tough.
When it all starts to sheet home and the body bags of our young people start arriving home and we all start to question the value of our country being involved, that is when you will see the politicians opposite voice their concerns.
Through our recent history it is the tory side that gets us into wars and the left gets us out of them.
You can see this elsewhere in the world Bush got the USA into wars, Obama has spent most of his Presidency trying to get them out.
Abbott still holds strong favour with Europe, he was born in London, went to Uni there, he hankers for the return of Colonial Australia and will very happily send another generation off to a European theatre of death to achieve it.
All of the jingoism and chest beating is part of the theatre, just like the red budgies are. Would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
04 Sep 2014 8:47:40am
Well said.
I'm surprised Putin, for example, hasn't responded with ' who is this annoying flea ' or some such.
Our foreign policy seems to be that of the little kid standing behind the tough bigger kid going nar nar na nar nar.
Can't these people get anything right ?
R Supwood:
04 Sep 2014 9:44:07am
Out of its c. seven thousand ICBM's, Putin might have redirected seven, one each for our national and state capitals, just for fun at Abbott's (and our) expense. Goodo.
04 Sep 2014 11:53:24am
a ranking Russian Federation general just the other day suggested just that ... a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the west.
those comments followed up on the back of Putins thinly veiled nuclear threats of last week.
04 Sep 2014 3:28:39pm
JoeBloggs: "a ranking Russian Federation general just the other day suggested just that ... a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the west."
It would help if you provided more information that would provide the context of the statement you claim was made.
For example, from 2008:
"The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.
Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world"."
04 Sep 2014 9:44:28am
I think they already have... something about Australia thinking it's something it's not.
I keep thinking of a chihuahua.
Craig Carpenter:
04 Sep 2014 8:48:10am
I call nonsense on this whole article.
A) Egypt's democracy was overthrown and we support this new regime lock step with the USA.
B) Ukraine's democracy was overthrown and we support the mob who overthrew it (at the risk of nuclear war mind you... Note - if 10% of either sides nuclear arsenal is use it will equal a nuclear winter).
So in light of these 2 points. What is really going on?
Answer = Empire building and Abbott is being a good puppet.
04 Sep 2014 10:10:05am
Ukraine's government was overthrown after it changed a policy that it took to the electorate to approve during the last election campaign. That policy was signing a document that would have created enhanced trade and links with the European Union. Instead, the elected government signed a document that signalled closer links with Russia.
This revolution and its aims are very similar to the Orange Revolution that occurred in 2004 and then stalled after once again, Russian intervention.
The majority of Ukrainian citizens wish for their country to have true democracy, and closer ties with Russia.
It is the electorate's right to overthrow a government that has lied and not acted as promised in an election campaign.
04 Sep 2014 11:30:33am
"Ukraine's government was overthrown after it changed a policy that it took to the electorate to approve during the last election campaign."
A broken election promise in other words.
04 Sep 2014 12:00:53pm
and it was a "core" election promise, not a "non-core"
04 Sep 2014 8:49:38am
These value he speaks of, or he wishes to spread are those mandated by the electorate?
Just by being voted in does not cement your and/or a mandate.
Let's face it, Australia is to put it very crude a bunch of honkie's + some other immigrants races + aboriginals in Asia.
Far away from the so called western strongholds.
Can he afford to blindly follow what ever his masters feeds him.
From a tactical point of view you are in case of trouble, cut off.
04 Sep 2014 8:51:20am
As with most political grandstanding, this is all for home consumption rather than any desire to actually do anything constructive.
04 Sep 2014 8:54:06am
This whole scenario seems disturbingly similar to the plot of the novel 1984. The distant conflicts, the control of the media, clandestine surveillance, the parallels are quite uncanny. Maybe I was wrong and Tony isn't illiterate after all.
04 Sep 2014 8:57:10am
This very readable article offers us a seemingly complex situation recast in appealingly simple terms . It asks us to let geography be our guide in what Lockyer calls the real politik.
What has added high octane accelerant to the flames of politics since the nineties has been the internet. It gives above all the seductive illusion of immediacy and proximity. So much so that over the last twenty years the 'global village ' created by air travel in the seventies has been reduced to the global fish-bowl of cyberspace. And storms in the fish-bowl are gathering pace.
The unprecedented tool of culture sharing 'the net' has in quick fire succession become an arch tool of big-time politicking and warmongering as well as big business.
As it is still so experimental we might well be apprehensive about where rampant new growth in globalisation will lead.
However a re-grounding in our own spatial geography, our lands ,seas and nearest neighbours is a very good place to start. I see here the principle behind the locally produced food movement under another guise, just keeping it close, straight and simple.
Lucky Paul:
04 Sep 2014 9:16:47am
I think we're lucky that the USA didn't follow the Monroe Doctrine of being insular and not getting involved in distant conflicts in both WW1 and WWII.
Things could have been very different currently.
04 Sep 2014 11:16:12am
Lucky Paul, that is quite true, Perhaps I didn't put my point forward very clearly. It is more that in the twenty-first century climate of such dramatic and intensive globalisation that we might need the self protective effect of localised or what you call the 'insular' approach.
I am thinking along the lines of the need to put one's own house in order for security's sake as we face a common future of unknown terrain.
It is not 1914 and neither is it 1939 . The stakes in the arena of global conflict in 2014, which is armed to unprecedented levels, are extraordinarily high.
05 Sep 2014 5:45:34am
right on, Bahbet....
04 Sep 2014 9:04:09am
We shouldn't be picking fights with anybody. Abbott is taking us on a dangerous course in areas of conflict which have nothing to do with us. And he seems to be deluded about our real power. We are not a middle ranking power, our current capacity for war is minimal on the world stage.
Having said that, what is happening in Syria and Iraq is intolerable. I hope the West, including us, do something about it.
04 Sep 2014 9:04:59am
We could well mistake macho posturing for leadership. It has worked before. Just add a simplistic slogan and stir.
04 Sep 2014 9:05:54am
We have in Abbott, an extremely dangerous man. He is dangerous due to his belief in his own superiority, the superiority of capitalism and human-kind in general, and in his view that aggressiveness and fighting are the way to rule, dominate and force one's world view on others, both here and elsewhere.
With these underlying beliefs, he is fighting Australians who are not wealthy and "in his clique", he is fighting the dispossessed and impoverished in the world, he is fighting our environment. He is closing down institutions that provide alternate world views to his own and changing policies that lead to alternative ways of living that might threaten current multinational companies. At the same time he is opening up the country to wealthy foreigners and multinationals to come and take what they please.
Abbott is the epitome of the human whi believes in the superiority of man, that the world is his to conquer and possess. In this thinking, he is taking us back to the Middle Ages and when this is linked with current technology, it has the capacity to destroy us and our planet. We have a choice. Either we see the destructiveness we are unleashing and realize, painful as it is in terms of throwing out our own egocentric views, that humans must live co-operatively with each other and the planet or we can continue on the current path. Perhaps if there is anything positive that can be said of Abbott and his government, it is that he is making the alternatives as plain as they can possibly be.....we are seeing the incredibly ugly results of human egocentricity and the lack of humility.
04 Sep 2014 9:07:28am
Abbott is proving a complete disaster here at home, with a government that seems to hate all but the very wealthy Australians or big business. They have absolutely no policies, no plans to get the country moving again. All they have are plans to upset everybody with draconian cut backs on welfare & services.
Now we are seeing Abbott on the global front, throwing his weight around like some over confident teenager. Hopefully someone will tell him to shut up & pull his head in, before he does some serious damage. Australia should be seen for what we are & that is a small country that will assist when necessary & certainly not one that is trying to set the agenda on the world stage.
I just wish someone would kick Abbott very squarely in the arse & tell him to shut up & go home.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 10:13:27am
That is such a ridiculous statement. Every government has had policies, you may not agree with these ones but they have them. In fact if your statement "a government that seems to hate all but the very wealthy..." is infact there has to be some form of policy which you can point to which supports this claim.
The "draconian cutbacks" are policy - these things don't just happn.
You do also remember we are members of the UN security council - this means we are actually required to talk on global issues not just bury our heads in the sound. If you disagree with that you can blame the previous government for aquiring us a seat on the counsel.
04 Sep 2014 11:56:57am
"we are members of the UN security council - this means we are actually required to talk on global issues not just bury our heads in the sound. If you disagree with that you can blame the previous government for aquiring us a seat on the counsel"
Good point Mr Chow, and makes me more determined than ever not to vote for either of the 2 major parties ever again.
the yank:
04 Sep 2014 4:42:19pm
Abbott's 'policy' before and during the election was to focus on Indonesia.
He and his supporters banged on about Labor's attention to Europe while ignoring our own area. Now that he has access to the VIP jet that has all changed. He is traveling as much if not more then Rudd.
He has totally lost focus on the local and is overjoyed to glad hand it with the rich and powerful in the US, Canada and Europe.
He is a hypocrite.
05 Sep 2014 4:35:36am
So when Rudd does it, it's ok, but when Abbott does it, it's not?
Talk about hypocrite.
EM Laidly:
04 Sep 2014 9:08:11am
Australia has become one of those tin-pot countries who beat their chest from behind the (US) parapets at nations like Russia while cosying up to the military dictatorships like Indonesia.
The people of Irian Jaya will continue to be displaced, tortured and murdered with the full support of the Australian government(s), as were the people of East Timor.
I guess because they are black, poor and sitting on a mountain of mineral wealth, they are easily dispensed with.
04 Sep 2014 12:03:55pm
No, its because creating another failed state that we will need to prop up in our region with decade upon decade of aid is not in our national interest, and last time i looked Indonesia had a democratically elected country, in fact their process is more robust and consists of a more engaged electorate than us.
EM Laidly:
04 Sep 2014 8:15:04pm
"their process is more robust and consists of a more engaged electorate than us."
The Kopassus is doing a terrific job of extrajudicial killings; employed by the government, moonlighting for the private sector.
04 Sep 2014 2:18:41pm
well said, EM. right on!
Lucky Paul:
04 Sep 2014 9:09:53am
I'd just comment that I find it funny when I read people's comments along the lines of "we're so small no-one cares what we think". The obvious inference being that having a moral code that we follow is irrelevant if we can't make a real difference and we shouldn't waste our time.
These same posters will then give it to a government that doesn't want to pass carbon targets for climate change when the governments excuse is "we're so small we can't make any difference" by demanding that we need to be seen as leaders and take a moral stand regardless of what effect we may be able to make.
04 Sep 2014 10:21:15am
Excellent point Paul.
You have highlighted an inconsistency in a lot of the posters thinking - they will not like it.
Peter the Lawyer:
04 Sep 2014 10:55:00am
You make a very good point Paul. However, I would argue that if the ALP supporters are wrong on Australia leading the world on climate change (which they are, as climate change is not man-made but natural), then they could be right on this issue.
Nevertheless, I think that the Abbott haters are, as usual, wrong on this issue too, because they are not taking into account all the circumstances.
04 Sep 2014 3:18:47pm
In order to lead it helps to be speaking from a position of authority.
When it comes to military/diplomatic issues, especially involving a superpower, and effectively being armed with something akin to a pea shooter, it pays to focus on diplomacy. An aggressive stance in this case is not really playing to your strengths (and undermines your position in future such instances, burning bridges etc....).
To speak from a position of authority in the case of something like climate change, it pays to actually be doing what you're suggesting others should be.
In both of these issues, the positions that the Coalition have chosen to adopt have undermined Australia's position. This loss of influence and authority will not be confined to just these two issues.
Simple isn't it.
04 Sep 2014 11:25:11am
Switzerland has done pretty well for itself being neutral and progressive. It will be interesting to see how Australia goes doing the complete opposite.
I'm not sure how Europe views Australia's input at the moment. Russia apparently seems to think that we're fanning the flames.
Threats are no substitute for diplomacy. Still, appeasement is no substitute either.
04 Sep 2014 11:37:21am
What's the inconsistency? Was someone proposing sending in non-lethal military assets against countries that weren't doing what we thought was appropriate on climate change?
I don't remember anyone disinviting a world leader to an international economic forum because we didn't think their climate change policies were up to scratch.
There's a world of difference in implementing domestic agendas to pursue strategies that tackle global problems and telling everyone else what to do; with threat of force.
04 Sep 2014 1:35:57pm
You missed the point - on one hand many of the above bloggers are saying that Australia is 'too small a country' 'of insignificant size' etc to be involved in peace keeping operations or assisting other countries in conflict but immediately on the other hand when the cause suits them claim 'Australia must show leadership' if we lead others will follow' 'our time to stand on the world stage'.
It is hypocrisy and only tackling the 'soft' issues says much about the proponents of such thinking
04 Sep 2014 2:05:56pm
I don't think anyone's saying we shouldn't be participating in peace-keeping operations. And doing our bit in the community of nations. That we're only prepared to commit to action once ALL the other nations also do.
But's that's different to the apparent unilateralism of our diplomatic and military interventionism. That, with respect to Putin for example, we are talking more belligerently than others who have more skin in the game (like Germany).
Our climate change policy was never a matter of us leading and others following. We, including the other more moderate conservatives like Howard, wanted to implement an ETS. Something plenty of others had done.
Perhaps I'm still missing the point. :)
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 9:10:09am
Geographic proximity has never underpinned Australian security relations. In fact since federation defence of Australia has been about maintaing our sea lanes of communications through the wolrds strongest Navies (The Royal Navy and then the US Navy).
Containment of China is highly important for maintaing our sea lines of communications and this just sits across something that can be described as shared values.
"sharing values" is a "nice" way to popularise support but sharing values is never the basis for a strategy. So please disconnect the rhetoric behind the strategic importance. Indian is highly important in containing China, as is Japan.
Countering the rising Chinese Naval fleet and see where our democtractic partners sit - (Indian in some ciricles ranks 7th on Naval power list, Sotuh Korea 8, Taiwan 10, Japan 4 [technically Maritime Self Defence Force] )
04 Sep 2014 9:16:02am
Australia should stay out of distant wars. It is making itself a target and could well be on the wrong side in World War III.
04 Sep 2014 10:42:06am
Wrong side, we'll shall all be on the wrong side in WWIII, don't you think?
You have to believe human being are warlike, right? It what's makes humans who you are. Always being against something, someone, or just against the environment; man has made war on anything that isn't to his ideals. I suggest sports are a practise for battle preparedness. Australia will always be on the right side, just like those who we'll fight against will believe they are on the right side. Your right might not be my right, but we are both right, aren't we?
Otherwise we are both wrong, and that isn't in the human psychology to compute!
Australia has a right to defend itself, and ignore the opportunity to move in the circles that will allow Australia to influence the direction of those whom would do Australia harm. I know that America had done that, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
04 Sep 2014 5:43:57pm
"...we'll shall all be on the wrong side in WWIII.."
Exactly! Tom Lehrer probably put it best in his song "We all go together when we go"
04 Sep 2014 9:16:09am
Australia is an insignificant land of 23 million people at the bottom of the world. Half the people in the USA think we are Austria and we yodel and play the piano. After the sheer horror of World War 1, the centenary of which we are currently 'celebrating' and the horrendous losses our nations suffered on the other side of the world for no good reason, you'd think we'd have enough common sense by now to realise that we shouldn't stick our noses into things that are none of our business. Here we are, trying to big-note ourselves by opening up our big mouth and infuriating far bigger and stronger countries (and that's pretty well everyone in the world except perhaps New Zealand) like Russia and playing 'chicken' with insane, murderous thugs like IS. Nobody in the real world cares what we think or gives a damn about us. We are nobodies, off the radar. Any world leader who 'compliments' us about Tony Abbott's and Julia Bishop's appearance on the world stage is just playing with us and it's about time we realised it. America pats us on the back for being good mates and we preen ourselves like peacocks. It's about time we got our sticky fingers out of the Middle East, Ukraine and Russia and started taking care of us at home. If that's Isolationist - good! Let's be Isolationist for a while. Might save a few Aussie lives into the bargain.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 9:28:58am
As inisignificant as we are we are the 12th largest economy in the world. We are not a consumer nation but a heavy trading nation. Being a island state we must maintain sea lines of communication. The loss of these severely threatens our economy and our well being. So whilst we maybe geographically irrelevant to the majority of the world the trade we provide has at least some level of relevance.
04 Sep 2014 11:27:41am
Where did I make any comment about trade and relations? I just want us to keep our big nose out of things that are none of our business. Like the civil wars in the Middle East and Ukraine. What a bunch of 'butt-in-skis' we Aussies are. Always know what is best for other people and more than happy to tell them.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 11:50:53am
You didn't hence your absolute misunderstandign on how there is more to relative significance than just geography.
My contenion is you are absolutely wrong say that we are an "insignificant land".
We can't maitnain our standard of living and prosperity by becoming isolationist - so we will need to continue to play on the world stage in some form.
05 Sep 2014 9:27:59am
Mr Chow, I understand trade and diplomatic relations perfectly well. But I do not understand how sticking our nose into other countries' internal strife and having the sheer 'hide' to tell them what to do, helps with trade and diplomatic relations. If you travel widely you find out just how very insignificant Australia is in the overall scheme of world politics and geography. Nobody cares what we think, nobody gives a damn. Isolationism means not butting into other countries' internal problems, but keeping trade and diplomatic relations with them. We (and Mr Abbott) are becoming a bunch of big-noting, loud-mouthed 'know-it-alls' and we need to butt out. And Mr Chow, you are extremely condescending.
04 Sep 2014 12:20:25pm
What do you mean ' we are not a consumer nation'So you are suggesting that our Trade defecit is just a joke..and in turn makes us trading nation.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 2:27:14pm
Poor phrasology on my behalf - we are not a consumer economy we are a service economy (64% of GDP).
Yes we consume, as does every economy but
QC Bob:
04 Sep 2014 12:31:05pm
"We are not a consumer nation".
Thanks. That made my day.
12th largest economy maybe but we primary produce raw materials. I challenge you to go buy an Aust made washing machine, toaster, aircon, carpet.........you know, consumables.
04 Sep 2014 12:58:22pm
Well said.
04 Sep 2014 10:30:01am
Just north of Australia - so close that it is just $800 for a return ticket - is a bunch of countries that are the most exciting and dynamic on the planet at the moment - Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore etc etc...
It is kind of like Australia is living in the coolest suburb on the planet, the one with the best restaurants and coffee shops - all within walking distance... but we keep heading off and spending a fortune on taxis to spend our Friday nights in the front bar of the roughest pubs (middle east) or, worse still, we are now banging furiously on the door of a musty old retirement home in some long forgotten ghetto (Eastern Europe).
04 Sep 2014 11:14:23am
Well said Chris. I live in Malaysia and I can only agree that this part of the world is ten times more dynamic than anywhere else. Life only stops here from 5:45am until 6am, giving them 15 minutes to mop the floor before the next day starts. The Europeans created their mess - let them clean it up. We should be engaging with our neighbourhood only and stop believing that we have any right, duty or obligation to get involved beyond that. Australia is simply too small to spread itself everywhere, all the time.
Peter the Lawyer:
04 Sep 2014 11:02:26am
I really do wish people would stop projecting conditions and ideas of 2014 back to 1914. In 1914, Australia was British. Have you got that simple fact?
Australia was British to the core.
Federation was not seen as independence, but merely as a coalescence of the colnies into one unit, undeer the Crown.
Back then Australia had the highest standard of living in the World and was part of the greatest Empire the world had ever seen. We were very proud of that, and therefore went to fight for that Empire gladly, because that Empire underpinned our whole existence and gave us our identity.
As late as 1931, the UAP (the forerunner of today's Liberal Party) could still win elections with the catchprase "Tune in with Britain."
In WW2 the bonds may not have been as strong, but Australians still saw themselves as members of the Empire which still underpinned our nation's prosperity, not least because British loans had kept us afloat during the 1930s.
04 Sep 2014 11:34:09am
Of course I realise we were British then. I'm sure being British and having 'a stiff upper lip' was a wonderful comfort to my English-born Great-Grandmothers who lost 3 Aussie sons in a useless, stupid war because an idiot Serb teenager shot a fat Archduke in Sarajevo. Definitely a good reason for my family members to die in the deserts of the Middle East and the trenches of France. Let's not do this again...ever!
04 Sep 2014 2:21:51pm
couldn't agree more, singki. i want my country to become more independent and self-sufficient while maintaining active and cooperative relationships with other countries.
this is not "isolationist" at all.
04 Sep 2014 9:19:01am
I suspect picking fights is Abbott's preferred modus operandi and the foreign argy bargy gives him a chance to strut his stuff for the voters.
As we learned during the Howard years distraction is always a great way to cover ideological manipulation in the economy of very questionable popularity.
It can be a dangerous ploy.Topically, Nicholas Romanov managed to skoot back into popularity and patriotic fervor by starting the First World War with military showing off based on uniforms and agreements without any real power, while keeping his preferred class in butter. As far as one can judge the end result was unintended and probably profoundly sobering.
The comparison is hyperbolical and I very much doubt we would experience an even remotely similar outcome here but it reminds that out of depth gung ho damn the torpedoes is a great crowd pleaser but it is wise to follow a good few steps behind rather than lead sometimes.
Latin for Politics:
04 Sep 2014 9:42:16am
"Both believe that democracy and Western liberalism are the superior organisational principles of society and these values should be defended around the world, by force if necessary" ... so it's OK for the western powers to use force to achieve their goals and ideals...but when any other country takes similar action the west ignores and even scoffs at their goals and ideals and brands them as militants and terrorists! Egregious hypocrites and extremely dangerous best describes these western power brokers
Brian Francis:
04 Sep 2014 10:00:18am
There does appear to be a lot of action around the globe presently, mainly because information is collateral and can be traded- up to provide the most interesting scenarios.
There is a vast difference between what the public believe to be happening and 'What is actually taking place'.
All too often the public is prepared to debate and argue the smallest of points that effect them personally, but when it comes to being told stories of atrocities, our debate tends to concentrate on the politics rather than the facts.
This is not a debate on whether Australia is following the U.S. Or any other country. Not a debate about whether Mr.Abbott is picking fights. Not about Australia taking a leading roll in standing up for something.
This is about whether people are being slaughtered or driven from their countries.
We, as citizens of a country, are not privy to the actual facts emanating from these disaster zones; we rely on reports from mainly media outlets. Our opinion is frankly, comprised of information that has been sold.
So to suggest that we know the facts, is dangerous ,and for us as the public to even think for a moment that our opinion( on the stance Australia is taking on the matters at hand)counts, is fool-hardy at best.
Governments are not in the business of sending people into war to be killed! The steps needed before such action is even contemplated, are well beyond the range of us as mere citizens.
Dave In Melbourne:
04 Sep 2014 10:33:02am
Good points Brian Francis.
But the media needs stories to keep the show rolling. Therefore people like Adam Lockyer are contracted out in to write lines.
He actually knows a lot less than he thinks he does. You know this when he personalises a country's security arrangements with a particular person. The reference to Abbott is the signature of a soapbox academic singing the old leftie lines.
The people that really know what is happening around the place don't give him information.
We are just consumers of noise.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 10:47:55am
I think you might be a bit harsh on poor Adam. He's giving the people what they want. I am sure his strong academic credientials means he knows far more about the incredibly complex nature of some problems.
But I do agree that blame it on Abbot the man is incredibly simplistic but also populistic.
Brian Francis:
04 Sep 2014 11:26:55am
I agree that we should not be hard on Adam.
But when you write 'he is giving the people what they want' that really worries me.
At what point did such an educated and upright person, begin to write 'Appealing' articles. We should be dealing with the facts from our academics and not a political view.
It is up to Adam and his cohort to bring educated and balanced views to the public and not begin to make some kind of a political statement.
The problem here is the same as was encountered by the scientists in the 'Climate Change' debate. There was no debating facts, it was just that scientists had their opinions spill-over into the realms of personal choice.
Adam has made a welcome contribution to this forum and he is to be commended for that, but it is incumbent on him to remain in his field of expertise and leave the lower level argument to people such as myself.
Dave In Melbourne:
04 Sep 2014 11:44:18am
Mr Chow, after rereading my post, I agree with your comment. I have read a few more of his articles and he is better than what I portrayed.
My apologies.
04 Sep 2014 11:49:53am
I coud not decide whether your comment-particulary the last para. is meant to be sarcastic or if you mean what it says.
History shows that Governments go to war and in war people are killed.maimed and displaced.
History also shows Governments go to many unnecassry wars- as in Vietnam and Iraq.
They do that because WE allow them to pull the wool over our eyes.
05 Sep 2014 9:03:26am
Whenever there is the "invisible hand" invoked with the "trust in me" as related to politicians then there is a sure warning flag shooting up that people are being led by the nose.
The old oft repeated adage that unquestioned faith in your government will get you killed, should always be in the forefront of every citizens mind. There is nothing more certain, looking about at the surface scratching inquiries, than that politicians are out for themselves and those who offer them"assistance"
Any time spent listening to parliamentry speeches and debate will reveal that the place is awash with weirdos and crackpots who believe all sorts of nonsensical urban myths about abortions, religion, homosexuals, women, and bigotry and the like.
The government is not some Platonic atheneum where the wise sit between the gods and men. It is a Dunning Kruger clogged reflection of society where people are grappling with forces they don't understand being led by simplistic solutions to complex problems beyond their understanding.
The duty of the citizen and the press in a democracy to keep a stern eye on their carryings on with view to tossing them out as often as required.
04 Sep 2014 10:03:52am
Proud to say I didn't vote for him. We are too small to have such big mouths. It is worrying that we want to be front & centre only to placate an ego larger than our land surface.
The bully pokes his tongue out & then hides behind his "allies". The only comfort in this is we do have allies. How long before Abbot puts is foot in his mouth to jeopardise that as well.
Don't we as employers have the right to give him a written first & final & then the next is not a warning - we fire him??without waiting for an election. Can someone check the Industrial Relations portfolio & see if this option is available to us "ordinary Australians"
A pocketful of wry:
04 Sep 2014 10:14:35am
"Team Australia: Leader of the Free World" proclaims the headline.
I suspect this is merely a clever ruse to gain control of the agenda in preparation for the introduction of co-payments. Free worlds are unsustainable, they are a burden on working families, they destroy jobs, and they encourage a belief in personal entitlement.
The fact that this so-called "Free World" may, in a sense, also be considered as a union (of nations) should hopefully convince any waverers to my thesis about the bigger ideological game being played out here.
04 Sep 2014 10:23:08am
'Abbott is a true believer in the notion that Australia's security can best be found in a favourable global order.That is, the global dominance of Western values in general, and individualism,liberalism,capitalism and democracy specifically"
I would say that is an accurate summation of the PM's core beliefs-and that of many Australians.
To me to believe that your way is the best way for all is the height or arrogacne and ignorance.
To begin with, not every nation in the West is so hung up on individualism and extreme capitalism as we are.
Many of us see that as the root cause of the economic-political and social crisis the West is in.
Secondly democracy means different things to different people. Neo cons seem to believe in the inherent right of the individual to become wealthy irrespective of how and at what cost to others .Non neo cons believe in the the "common good' and the obligation of the individual to contribute to that good.
Therefore Abbott's 'values" are certainly not mine- we obviously share some-but not enough for me to trust him and his Government with my security.
It was after all the LNP which led us into unnecessary wars in Vietnam and Iraq.
What I find most dangerous in his arrogance is his 1950s runnel vision. The world is rapidly moving into the Third Industrial Revolution which of itself wil present many new challenges and a shifting of glolobal powers. At present that power resides with the Corporations.
Saudi Arabia beheaded 19 people in 15 days just last month- but Saud is a friend of big oil- so we said nothing.
We did not even have the decency to thank the Ukrainian separtists for recovering our dead-even though they faced death themselves.
Seems some values are valuless.
04 Sep 2014 10:26:52am
Living in Indonesia opened my eyes to the need for Australia to do precisely what Adam Lockyer expresses with such clarity in this piece. I just hope Australia's interests will not be too damaged by this governments outmoded and counterproductive ideology.
04 Sep 2014 12:10:07pm
It's most definitely in our national interests to uphold international law.
Whether it be Putin's encroachment on a sovereign nation's borders or IS human rights abuses in northern Iraq, Abbott is right to call for punitive action against those who breach the most basic conventions.
Doing nothing only emboldens perpetrators, encouraging further abuse.
Globalisation means nothing if countries large and small can't pull together to ensure basic standards of decency and order.
04 Sep 2014 12:30:16pm
It's most definitely in our national interests to uphold international law.
Whether it be Putin's encroachment on a sovereign nation's borders or IS human rights abuses in northern Iraq, Abbott is right to call for punitive action against those who breach the most basic conventions.
Doing nothing only emboldens perpetrators, encouraging further abuse.
Globalisation means nothing if countries large and small can't pull together to ensure basic standards of decency and order.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 10:32:01am
We are also, as a result of work by the previous government, a non-permanent member of the UN security council. With this comes numerous responsibilities, amongst others:
* to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations.
If you look a this further Article 1 of the Charter of the UN states that responsibility "develop friendly relations among nations based on repsect for the prinicple of equal rights and self-determination...".
If we take our job on the security council seriously then we should be supporting self determination. If we don't want to do it then we should remove ourselves frmot eh security council - The UN should be beyond our own self interests.
04 Sep 2014 11:03:22am
The article makes some sound points but although not a Abbott supporter I thought his quick response to the crisis in nothern Iraq caused by ISIS was the appropriate response.The concern I had was how few countries spoke up in the support of the US.If they had,particularly Moslem countries,it would have sent a message to ISIS.It was good to see Indonesia do that.The problem with Abbott's approach to foreign policy and some of his Allies is that their actions almost ensure the reaction from the country they fear.The China containment policy is a good example.Could you imagine if China had a "containment policy towards the US".China won't fight for Taiwan,they will get it back in time,like they did with Hong Kong and Macau.They have patience unlike the western cultures of "instant gratification".We could learn something from some of these other cultures.The Ukraine issue is a concern for Europe to solve.The longer they look weak Putin will keep pushing into Ukraine.It would be stupid for Australia to allow Putin to attend the G20 and I believe FIFA either takes the Football World Cup event off him or the World boycott the event.Australia should be pushing these options and stay out of combat.
04 Sep 2014 12:26:30pm
I am a coalition supporter and I totally agree with what you have said.
I am very uncomfortable about getting involved in the Ukraine problems unless NATO said they could not handle it and wanted extra help.
The trouble is I only form my views from what is in the media. I would like an Australian with geo political expertise to present the argument for us getting involved in the Ukraine. There might well be good reasons and it could be in our self interest but as a member of the general public and can't imagine what that reason is.
Artful Dodger:
04 Sep 2014 5:12:24pm
I would also like an Australian with neutral geo political expertise to present arguements for and against involvement in Ukraine.
In presenting the argument I would hope he/she would explain the history; including the agreement between the US and the then unwinding USSR as agreed between the then US Secretary of Sate Stanley Baker and Pres, Gorbachov.
One hopes he/she will also include the interference of US Ambassador Nolan- Senator McCain-the breaking of the Feb 2014 gareement between the EU and the then Government of Ukraine and the history of its now Prime Minister.
One also hopes he/she would cover the Russian interference- and the shooting down of MH 17. I find it strange that has goe so quiet-just what did the black boxes -which BTW were recovered by separitists ( as were the dead) reveal?How far would "Operation bring them home" have gone without those seperatists? What did all those AFP,military and diplomatic personnel really achieve?
I would love an expert to explain it all to me.
04 Sep 2014 6:30:43pm
Agreed. I would also expect to see China/Russia oil deal and retention of the USD as sole trade currency in the article.
04 Sep 2014 11:20:32am
What a broken democracy where this hyper-interventionism doesn't get canvassed in parliament. Where the opposition does a me-to on behalf of keeping the law and order crowd on board.
We're a little dog yapping from under the skirts on the USA. A nation of 25 million people presuming to play strong-man against a big country.
Germany has been far more considered and circumspect. Holland wasn't pre-emptively holding Putin personally responsible for the plane that got shot down (despite more of their citizens being murdered).
Why is he sowing all this hubris on behalf of our nation? Won't conservatives, if they are conservative, get a little nervous about all our posturing against much bigger countries.
Big humanitarian crisis going on in Nigeria btw. Why aren't we rattling sabres there? Not in our national interest perhaps: Africa is a long way away after-all.
04 Sep 2014 12:00:29pm
Forget Japan and India. Don't worry about what's happening in the middle east or eastern Europe. (Does that mean we can still export uranium to Russia?) Eschew a relationship with NATO. Reject our own Western values. Concentrate on Indonesia and - have I got this right? - China. Looks like Australia's national interest is to be as isolationist as possible.
MSBogan :
04 Sep 2014 12:07:11pm
How is Tony's deployment of 1000 troops in Eastern Ukraine going? Who does not think the Separatists would not have seen not seen this as a NATO back entry? ( correctly as it turns out) ?
Could we have some progress on the MH17 ( do not mention the mh370) ? Itis an awfully long time for basic information to surface. SAM /explosion /electronic jamming /Ukrainian fighter attack/ some of these should have been eliminated by now.
Btw the Ukrainian Army have left the zone now - it is safe to go back . Can I mention here that it was The Ukrainian Emergency Services that did the clean up of bodies plus local volunteers . Is there an address where we can apologise for the insults hurled at them by our government & lap dog media ?
Onward Team Australia marching off to the next crises to insert ourselves.
04 Sep 2014 12:14:07pm
Not taken in by the humanitarian dust either?
04 Sep 2014 12:16:58pm
I hope australia becomes a superpower one day. Abbott has started the ball rolling. Onya tony!
QC Bob:
04 Sep 2014 12:40:29pm
Do you talk of a superpower that is a shinning light culturally/ socially and which other countries wish to emulate or aspire to, as America was for so many years?
Or do you wish for a military superpower that can cower others into submission? Nuclear armaments?
Exactly what ball has started rolling under Abbott?
04 Sep 2014 2:19:15pm
Walter Mitty's.
04 Sep 2014 12:44:23pm
I agree that Islamic State is no threat to Australia, but I think your logic falls apart at the end of your article. We should not be engaging with India and Japan but concentrating on Indonesia, but then state "Other strategic trends that influence Australia's security environment, such as the rise of China and India, also affect Indonesia". If that is the case then we cannot neglect having closer ties with nations such as India and Japan, as well as Indonesia.
04 Sep 2014 12:57:19pm
Abbott - a little man with a loud voice trying to be noticed on the world stage. Unfortunately for him and us the rest of the world will be wondering why the people of Austria are going down that little corporal track again.
04 Sep 2014 12:58:46pm
Totally agree - this is dangerous and unnecessary direction for this country and I fear where this is heading.
The fact that T Abbott and 'his' team Australia are leading us there is even more worrying.
04 Sep 2014 1:05:05pm
Adam, a very well-written piece. The truth is the world needs countries like Australia to stand up for what is right, for the values we hold, to call a spade a spade (as we Aussies have always done) and yes the world is shaping up in a certain way - islam does threaten our way of life, it is threatening Europe's and is shaping up to be the battle of minds of the 21st century, just like communisim was in the 20th C. We have to relaise that Muhammad murdered hundreds of people in battle by beheading (whereas jesus murdered no-one and told his followers to turn the other cheek) Islam is not a religion of peace - the Q'ran calls on muslims to behead infidels. We can't ignore this threat. As a female who understands how lucky I am to live in nation were women are equal both under the law and all other spheres I do not want to see islam make inroads here or anywhere else.
04 Sep 2014 2:52:44pm
The qu'ran does not call on Muslims to behead infidels
04 Sep 2014 8:26:41pm
I don't concur that women in Australia have emancipation in all spheres as you suggest.
In addition l add that as long as women do not achieve the emancipation of men as part of their own liberation, then there is a very long way to go yet.
Finally the idea of equality often is suggestive of sameness to men. Women are different to men and these differences need to be celerbrated along with the qualities that are special to the male of the species.
04 Sep 2014 1:15:44pm
Adam - I think this is a wonderful article. Not only is it well written but it puts a complex situation into some kind of understandable framework.
Neither Abbott or Shorten are seriously concerned with our national interests because of the very fact that shared values with the USA are the focal point. Why?
The answer as to why this is so, can be seen in the history, of primarily, US foreign policy and British foreign policy and Australia's persistence in supporting these policies, though currently to support them now is a failure to break away from the old cold war rhetoric.
If we look back, say, to Nicaragua, we saw after the dictatorship was overthrown, that a reasonably equitable society was established under the Sandinistas. Reagan criticized the election as a sham and the comparative successful, though not perfect society was denounced as the product of Leninist - Marxist subversion. This value attitude toward Nicaragua's success by the US threw it back into an impoverished society once again in order to satisfy the power agendas of the USA.
Abbott does us no justice on the world stage with his out of date anti Putin rhetoric, value judgements that can be consistently cited throughout the foreign policies of the US and Britain.
You are correct, Adam, Abbott is not following the US, he is taking the lead. Putin wants peace and America and Australia are provocative.
Abbott is dangerous. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious.
04 Sep 2014 1:38:29pm
Excellent article. The government's recent actions in relation to Irag and the Ukraine do not seem to have taken into consideration what is in Australia's national interest. A plane carrying Australian passengers crashes in the Ukraine and now we suddenly need an embassy there? When foreign policy decisions are made on a reactionary and politically motivated basis our genuine national interests may be prejudiced.
04 Sep 2014 1:55:54pm
It is not value based politics but simply Christianity driven crusades to vilify and attack others
04 Sep 2014 2:05:45pm
If I read the article correctly - instead of Australia blindly following the USA, the blind are now leading the blind. That is the most reassuring assessment of LNP policy I have heard all week.
Mr Chow:
04 Sep 2014 2:32:54pm
Why has this turned into an attack on a political party. This action has bipartisan support.
You are attacking the man and not the ball - and it is not warrante, this time anyway.
04 Sep 2014 5:20:59pm
The man is the leather ball, don't you get yet?
04 Sep 2014 2:25:18pm
What a shame that Australia does not appear to have political leadership on either side of the aisle with the capacity and gravitas to absorb and then develop and deploy policy based on Dr Collyer's analysis. One of the best summations I have seen for a long time.
04 Sep 2014 2:26:22pm
Sorry. Meant Dr Lockyer.
04 Sep 2014 3:02:06pm
who are we in the world, some countries in the world must laugh how our Prime Minister dashes here and there making speeches on how to solve world problems, with our small population and limited resources compared to the USA, Russia, China and India, people must think that we are a joke! how about he solves our problems first by bringing down a sensible budget and helping the little person in Australia
04 Sep 2014 3:25:32pm
It's fairly evident that the financial and political interest are one of the same and this the way of the world. Also not following what the larger players would like may well result in a change of leadership or government, via vested interests within media saturating the content.
The best thing we can do is work on attaining a more educative balanced media with different perspectives, such as English programs from Singapore, China, Russia etc. will help us develop and improve ourselves. Being kept unnecessarily stupid as a group has the most damaging effect upon our quality of life of all. When government doesn't have control of both houses is the only opportunity for the standard of media to be lifted. The collatoral damage in trying to improve media whilst in govt. would be/is too great.
04 Sep 2014 3:53:16pm
Thank you for this excellent analysis. The best I have read yet. Tony Abbott's best contribution to the IS threat is to call it as a 'death cult' as opposed to either a 'state' or a caliphate'. The other grandstanding is a worry.
04 Sep 2014 5:20:08pm
Good on you , Tony Abbott. Evils must be snuffed out before they get a chance to spew poisons into our drinking water !
What Abbott and Bishop are doing reminds me of some new kids on the block. Ever so eager to be accepted into the fold of the tough neighbourhood, the new kids want to tell everyone who care to pay any attention that they are tough and fight-ready. No content to follow the lead of USA and merely be the 51st state of the USA. Abbott wants to break out and lead.
Just telling everyone that you are tough simply doesn't cut it, you want to act it. The opportunity arrived when Ukraine got into civil strives. It got even better when the MH17 was taken off the sky. Straight away, Bishop and Abbott knew it was Russia the devil who did it. Then crazy, half-thought out idea about sending "armed" AFP to "Operation Bring Them Home". Unless you are a total moron, you know it is utter madness to potentially engage Russia in a war. Even USA is not too keen for that idea.
The Jack Russel in Abbott and Bishop seemed oblivion to the risk of making a bad situation even worse. Perhaps it is far easier to win friend overseas than at home. As the old saying goes: "It looks far better from a distance !" A lot of barking does draw a lot of attentions to us. Ultimately, people know a Jack Russel will just be what it is, a pain the ass and not much harm from it.
Take Fiji for example, it is getting cosier with China. That is where it really matter to Australia, I believe. All that chest thumping and floor stomping will win a few friends in Europe, for sure. However, when and if Australia is, god forbidden, gets into some disputes with other nations, would Europe come to our aid?
It appears that Abbott is only too keen to be part of Europe. That is fine as he believe "Birds of the feather flock together". However, one should never forget that when it comes to "National Interest", some birds would very quickly decide to break ranks and head for the better patch.
04 Sep 2014 5:20:54pm
If the Abbott government is really supporting the 'western values' of liberalism and democracy in its foreign policy then why is his government supporting the ultra nationalist Junta that overthrew the democratically elected government of the Ukraine in a violent coup and since seizing power has (with American financial backing) raised battalions of SS mercenaries to wage war on those elements in the Ukraine who voted for and supported the overthrown government. Why is he offering aid to this fascist regime that is attacking its own people in a vicious civil war, shelling civilians, bombing cities, burning people alive, torturing and disappearing people, shelling refugees? What action is our government intending to take against Australian mercenaries/terrorists like (such as OZINKIEV who has written on these pages!!) who are fighting with this Ukrainian Junta (at least one, according to an early ABC interview during the coup in Kiev, are amongst the Junta leadership!!!) What 'values' are these that your government is really supporting Mr Abbott????
Noel Conway:
04 Sep 2014 5:34:55pm
Tony Abbott has been tough, but he has also been inconsistent, as has his team. This false bravado, is, like the author of the article points out, dangerous, if not outright stupid.
What are the inconsistencies of Abbott and his team on the world stage? Firstly, it was Abbott's crazy claim that "this (evidence) is the best yet in establishing the whereabouts of MH370." This was Abbott's claim that they had found the missing plane. they had creditable evidence of its whereabouts. Tony Abbott said this, made this extraordinary claim, and yet, as we know, the plain was not in that area, has not been found, and if anything we are further away now from knowing its whereabouts than we ever were. The most that we know is where it is not. Tony Abbott shot from the hip, and was found desperately wanting.
With the second Malaysian aeroplane, Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop both flagged the idea of sending armed forces into the area to investigate the crash and bring Australians home. They quickly abandoned this idea, but said armed "police" would go in. Then they abandoned the idea of armed as a simply bad idea, convinced by the rest of the world that they were biting off way more than they can chew. Well they did go in, unarmed, but they have been unable to fully investigate the crash site or to recover all Australian bodies. Their bravado once again has been shown as empty rhetoric.
If this 'strength" of Abbott and Bishop on the world stage was real "strength" it would be accompanied by vision, not false bravado and false claims.
With IS Abbott has called them the scum of the earth, the worst evil the world has ever seen, he has talked up what should or could be done, and he has had to be pulled into order by no less than Barak Obama, who has repeatedly said there would be no ground forces in Iraq. Abbott, Bishop and Johnson have been shown to be out of their depth, and have only been drawing the eye if IS towards us. If an Australian journalist is killed we will know who to blame.
And now Abbott and Bishop are ostracising Russia, a country you simply do not want to make an enemy of. Does Australia really see its interest in entering into a cold war with Russia, knowing their capabilities? Knowing their friends like North Korea in our region?
We are not alone, Tony, and we don't need you ratcheting up talk of war and armed troops. Sending weapons to the Kurds is crazy. I can guarantee at least some of those weapons will be in the hands of IS before the year is our.
Tony Abbott has made a total disaster of international diplomacy, his shoot from the hip attitude may work well in domestic politics but it doesn't make it on the world stage.
04 Sep 2014 5:39:53pm
Excellent article, it is always good to read informed knowledge from an academic as opposed to opinion from main stream media commentators.
Abbott is seemingly becoming more cunning and I feel, quite dangerous. He loves the power and limelight of the world stage. I remember his comments
when Julia Gillard was lobbying for a seat on the UN council "The PM should not be swanning around New York talking to Africans......" and "its an extraordinary
dislocation of diplomatic priorities..." Could someone pull him into line. I worry about our future, now Abbotts seems to have tired of trashing our country
he has now moving around the globe.
04 Sep 2014 5:50:02pm
The author, in his rash portrayal of Australian's past, fails to recognise that the overwhelming majority of volunteers during the first world war, considered themselves to be British to their bootstraps.
Revisionist historical misrepresentations, do no credit to the author, nor do they allow modern Australians an honest view of Australia's history.
Remember, the British Empire was not the aggressor in this conflict.
04 Sep 2014 9:01:30pm
God bless them all for what they did, and full respect to whatever their individual rationale for doing so. But the battle was for the British Empire and what it stood for. The popular sentiment that imbued this country with the will to join that fight has, largely evaporated and only remains in concentrated essence in the minds of those who nostalgically cling to the notion that peace and stability can only be attained if Brittania rules the waves. Hence the author's point that those modern-day minds make sense of the sacrifices in WW1 and 2 in that context. Quite separate from the question of why people volunteered in the first place.
04 Sep 2014 6:35:23pm
Fact is the Abbott government has received positive polling from interfering in every dogfight he can find. Of course he'll keep doing it.
Abbott's pursuit is not about ego, it's not about superiority, it's not aggression, it's all about the polls.
To get some time off, he needs a bigger fight, a war! That should keep him going past the next election if all goes well - for him.
Isn't it cute the conservative parties always take Australia to war. Maybe be people like the excitement of news about the troops losing a few each week. How awful.
The major disappointment is Bill Shorten. Really Bill, all the way with Tony Abbott. This is a lack of maturity in a position of leadership. To jump right in behind Abbott into anything should be out of the question in all except a condolence speech.
Bill qualified nothing, added nothing, removed nothing and asked no clarifications. Not good.
04 Sep 2014 6:39:04pm
Is Tony Abbott really taking the lead? There are only a few references to him in the New York Times, and none at all in the Ukraine and IS contexts. It is all just a show for the domestic appearances!
04 Sep 2014 7:01:18pm
I have one question regarding Ukraine. How does a nation that was so poor that it was in debt to so many countries and even in debt to Russia to the equivalent of half our national debt manage to wage such a strong civil war against a separatist movement. Who has been paying them to continue this war against the pro-Russian east when they couldn't even heat their homes before the conflict broke out.
04 Sep 2014 7:41:05pm
Arms Industry in Russia and Ukraine are amongst the largest in the world.
Part of the reason for the conflict is the US/Britain wants to take over Ukrainian Industry, Agriculture, Energy, so they make a coup, stick in a comprador class etc., the same thing happened to Serbia.
There's a lesson in this for Australia. If Nato/US suffers some serious military setbacks, we should seize our own assets back, starting with mining assets.
04 Sep 2014 8:59:54pm
Probably because their government is not really that different to ours.
Our economy is very strong yet we have cutbacks to our social safety net whilst spending $24billion buying fighter jets to do what exactly?.
We can't afford Gonski yet we have plenty of money for submarines, once again for what purpose?.
We are spending bucket loads on making an cruel example of those horrible people arriving by boat asking us for help yet we have lots of money to lock them up and spare boats to give to Sri Lanka to chase them down.
We make cuts to CSIRO of $200million plus but have $250million odd dollars spare for school chaplains.
Its not just us though, it is a constant across the globe where people starve through lack of resources whilst well equipped wars machines rage on.
04 Sep 2014 8:30:06pm
At the moment the Prime Minister of Australia is like an adolescent who having just received his driving licence feels it necessary to drive up and down the main street of his community.
Even better if he can parade in his highly modified, noisy and over the top motor vehicle. Just like his avatar TA needs to stop every so often ,stare around and hope to see the admiring glances of an army of dedicated acolytes.
I have no issue with Australia declaring that it will back international action to reduce the suffering of civilians in the current trouble spots of the world. Unfortunately these declarations so far have taken on the appearance of the juvenile described previously big-noting himself.
Froth and bubbles surrounded the tragedies of flights MH370 and MH17. In both instances a little less bluster and a good deal more common sense in waiting for definitive evidence would have been more helpful in prosecuting Australia's case in forums such as the UN.
The recent tragedy in Gaza featured an almost unrelenting attack on one side of the conflict. Belatedly when even the USA and the UK began to question Israel's tactics it became accetable for Australia to do so. I doubt that either of these two influential partners will be swayed into international actions only if Australia appears willing to give its agreement to such actions.
It now appears that Australia wants to be seen as a major player in the conflicts in Afghanistan , Iraq/ Syria and now the Ukraine. Apart from any financial considerations in these times of "Budget Emergency" does anybody seriously believe we have the military capability to do all these things.
Offering assistance to all and sundry appears more to be for the newspaper headlines and photo-opportunities than any sensible assessment of what Australia can genuinely offer as assistance in addressing the enormous and complex issues of these conflicts.
04 Sep 2014 9:33:28pm
Tony Abbott might consider protecting Australia first.
China is looking restless for exactly the same reason as Abbott, popularity.
We don't belong in Ukraine, is it in our national interest.
Syria and Iraq need a little help with IS. This may be in our interest.
Around WWII in the Pacific, China was occupied, Pearl Harbour was bombed, Singapore was under siege and Churchill didn't want to release our troops in Europe.
Finally, the Australian worker has to pay for war in their tax. But it will be good for most business.
04 Sep 2014 10:48:22pm
Abbott is surely the weakest PM we have had in the security role. The correct response to ISIS is not to, yammer on about it, like a panicked school child.
The part in the greatest stuff up in western security history the Iraq. Creating the Shia domination of a previously non terrorist Sunni area . He bungled not supporting the UN seat that he had to so humiliatingly use in the Ukrainian crisis . the collation promised to bring them all home, then didn't , stuffed up again.
Finally he bunged badly calling Scottish independance voters anti-freedom, when they have amount there ranks people who have fought the Nazis and the the Communists in the cold war, as well as served in the recent conflict. In short a mess!
04 Sep 2014 11:55:15pm
I would prefer Mr Locker to refer to Mr Abbott by his correct title of Prime Minister or Mr Abbott, his lack of respect for authority is a concern to me. His wild generalisations are also unhealthy. In most instances the Prime Minister is doing his job. I wonder how some of us would feel if we had the blow torch applied to our stomachs. It is no wonder our universities in Australia are becoming mundane internationally when university staff like Mr Lockyer write such poor articles, where is the balanced opinion, the perspective Mr Lockyer ?
Across the world there is a struggle for power, murderous in its effects, and so the energy and combined resources that should be used to work together to tackle the problems of drought and famine and disease and the vast movements of refugees are used instead for military arms and action.
And we in Australia are busy "getting and spending" and whining because our employer's super contribution is only 9.5%.
Oh Lord, your world, my world, forgive us, heal us and redirect us...
05 Sep 2014 1:27:54am
All at sea in Australia and even more internationally.
05 Sep 2014 2:03:38am
It seems to me to be about:-
" The preservation of life and property and the freedom of all
Gods people, regardless of religion"
Anything else smacks on the Communist cant and the black
side of any religion.
Let the enlightenment of humanity win out in the end.
I hope.
L B Grahame:
05 Sep 2014 2:25:46am
I congratulate the standard of journalism; whether one agrees with Adam Lockyer's perspective or not, his comment is above average for Australian writers in the public forum. If he finds his academic funding redirected to the clergy, perhaps he can find work with S-D-Z or the Economist?
Amongst the profound problems with idealism such as Abbots, (or any other variety), are the tendencies to redirect human potential toward the trading of blows based upon the advice of all-knowing phantoms, and that the public face of idealism masks the errors and emotions of mere men. No example more hypocritical or wasteful of human potential need be given than that of the religious establishment.
The security of frontiers and trade routes has often been achieved by building relationships around the parties interdependence on the benefits they derive from them. The profiteering attitude of 'might is right' is a very short sighted one, even worse when based upon idealism.
In an analogous manner to that in which unregistered street trading increases money supply, the existence of many 'non-western' value systems increases the wealth of Australia within her frontiers. Western values are in the minority globally.
05 Sep 2014 5:06:21am
This has nothing to do with international politics or the Australian ?National Interest? all this is about is diverting scrutiny for more neo-conservative trash politics.
Trash leaders like abbott do not do well under scrutiny so everything and anything is used to get the public interested in something else.
Closer engagement with NATO is such a move, it will not do anything for Australia, and in fact it could well drag Australia into more ridiculous wars in support roles that we can?t afford.
We specially can?t afford such a wasted effort since this government has lost so much money with the repeal of the mining tax and the huge deficit abbott and hockey have racked up.
The electorate need to wake up but they won?t smell roses just the stink of deception corruption emanating from the cabinet room in Canberra.
05 Sep 2014 5:28:21am
yeah right, your own house is on fire and you are busy putting out a fire 4 blocks away !!!
Team OZ? is there any other hypocritic tiltle than this one? what team? team of egoistics? team of rich? team of power hungry media moguls? team which pays not attention to the plight of a average ozzy?
Team? plz... haven't you insulted Australian enough already?
let me correct that title for you,
Team Shamless Buffoons.
05 Sep 2014 6:36:15am
Hypocrisy. Lies. Opportunism. Racism.
Pretty much explains not only Abbott's foreign "policy" but virtually everything else this man does.
Be afraid.
05 Sep 2014 7:44:10am
I find it tedious to read all those who pull down our current national leader. You'd think he was some Idi Amin or like the way some respondents go on about him!
I also find that I, like so so many others [Aussies et al] have told me over decades, know that Australia is the 'best place to live'.
I think the Queen and all that she 'stands for' is jolly good if not venerable! Just like some in the middle east who want a Caliphate. I can understand that - the sense and need for a cultural unity is a valuable and sustaining thing. Ditto for Western Europe. Difference is important. Unity is necessary.
In Australia we have loosened so much in recent decades at our cost on a number of fronts, socially and culturally. This I rue without measure.
05 Sep 2014 8:11:55am
Yes lets get more involved in the 1000 year old sectarian conflict in the Middle East, after all we did such a great job last time!
And why not get involved in another ancient dispute in Europe
Good for the arms vultures and in the DNA of idiots who seem to have little knowledge of history, or choose to ignore history for their own short term political ends!
05 Sep 2014 9:31:34am
I am wondering if our PM believes that if he joins with NATO countries in their dispute against Russia this time around, the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, etc., will come rushing to our aid, should we get on the wrong side of other militarily powerful countries that are geographically proximate to ourselves. In which case I reckon he would be very disappointed!!!
Comments for this story are closed.

subset: commoncrawl