Abbott ignores greater problems to attack ISIS
Abbott ignores greater problems to attack ISIS
Wednesday October 1 2014, 11:45am
THERE’S nothing like an external threat to ginger up support for a government. It happened this week after Tony Abbott’s speech to Parliament and the United Nations. His approval rating shot up six points.
The voters, of course, are irrational. But smart politicians recognise voters’ irrationality and you can hardly blame them for playing the national security card. But do not mistake it for leadership.
Abbott was correct in saying that “protecting our people is the first duty of government”.
But in doing that, a government should identify the risks and respond proportionately.
That has not happened in response to the murderous thugs in Iraq Syria. After all, they are in Iraq and Syria.
How is it, for example, that the Government, on coming to office, slashed aid to Iraq from $16 million to $3.7 million and in the May Budget cut it to zero? Then, suddenly, after some Americans got beheaded and the world’s news media, and therefore the US government, paid more attention to the Middle East, we engage in what government ministers have called a humanitarian mission to Iraq.
Suddenly they need our aid again.
Meanwhile, murderous thugs in Zimbabwe, the Congo and several other African hellholes continue on their merry way not requiring any international military response on humanitarian grounds. Then again, they do not have any oil that we need.
Admittedly, no citizens of western countries are seeking to join the Africa fighters and return to commit terrorist acts here. But let’s put that in perspective.
A proportionate response would be to increase the quality, quantity and resourcing of policed forces in Australia, not to engage in a foreign military adventure with no measurable aims and no end in sight.
Abbott’s response, however, has been politically masterful. Random beheadings on the street in Australia evokes a powerful image. This horror could happen to me, or a member of my family. It would be so easy. As Abbott said, “All that would be needed to conduct such an attack is a knife, a camera-phone and a victim.”
So we thank Statesman Tony for protecting us; for dashing through Parliament laws that will erode our liberty in order to save it.
Yes, it is nasty. Yes, it might happen. But sending troops and jet fighters to Syria and Iraq will not stop it. As with earlier incursions by US-led western nations, all it will do is make it worse.
A government determined to have “protecting our people” as its “first priority” would look more seriously at other threats which will affect the lives, livelihoods and health or far more of us.
Climate change, of course is the first. Abbott and many on Team Abbott have said that Australia on its own can do little or nothing about it.
This is utterly inconsistent with our tiny military contribution in support of various US-led wars in the past 50 years: Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II and now Syria. In theory, our contribution, however small, made an international coalition stronger.
As it happened, all of those military ventures were failures – unlike an international effort on climate change which would work.
A good government would do its best to protect its people from climate change by joining an international effort giving it more strength.
In any event, even if that government thought climate change was “crap”, it would recognise that nearly every other nation does not and is doing something about it.
It would recognise that Australia faces trade sanctions if it does nothing. It would recognise that renewable energy is a good investment anyway. California, for example, with a larger economy than Australia, has done very well economically since mandating changes to renewables and taxing fossil fuels more heavily.
A good government would also do its best to protect its people from disease and obesity. It would have done more to help the international effort to combat the ebola virus. But that is in Africa – well out of voter concern. It would have done more to protect children from junk food.
And the government could protect Australians from the burden of over-population, instead of deliberately contributing to it.
It could protect Australians against the threat of rogue financial advisers; poor health services and over-priced tertiary education.
These pose greater danger to Australians’ security than terrorists – ghastly as terror attacks are. The chance of an Australian being killed by a terrorist in the past 14 years was about one in 1.1 million. The chance of being killed in a road accident in the past 14 years was about one in 1500. The chance of being moderately affected by climate change or over-population in the next 10 years is close to 100 per cent, the way things are going. The chance of being seriously affected (storm, heatwave, cancelled sport finals or whatever) looks like being too high for comfort.
And the chance of dying early from obesity climbs ever higher.
But these are silent, gradual threats, that do not resonate with those who answer opinion polls. And they are nowhere near as compelling for media coverage or inducing exaggerated fear as the beheadings of white people.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The big book by our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, came out this week.
So we have had our first female Prime Minister and our first female Governor-General. The top of the tree. Indeed, we have had 30 or 40 years of first females: school principals, backhoe drivers, state Premiers, judges, High Court judges, fighter pilots, newspaper editors, Top 20 CEOs and so on.
Unfortunately, this sort of media coverage leaves an inaccurate picture. Each individual story might be completely accurate but the overall picture is misleading.
It suggests that women have made it in every field; that the quest for equality and equality of opportunity is therefore over and there is nothing more to be done. Bunkum.
