Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.  

Australia’s Political Situation is Calm Compared to Egypt

How exciting. With in less than a week, one country has replaced its leader and another looks on the verge of changing its leader. 

I am writing about the political situations in Australia and Egypt. 

In Australia, the governing party internally ousted the Prime Minister and re-installed a man that once experienced the fate of the unfavoured PM. All was done in a matter of hours, some cared, some didn't, and the public continue to live their lives without much interruption. 

In the case of Egypt, if the large amount of the population and the military, get their way, are intent of removing their President from office, even if the outcome is for more violence.

The political situation in Australia is calm compared to the situation in Egypt, and last week's leadership change was conducted without violent protest or threats from the military. But if you have been watching or reading the news, you would know that Egypt is once again on the verge of further political and social unrest, with violent protests and the military announcing that if President Morsi and opposition parties do not resolve the crises by this Wednesday, they may step in again, meaning more violent conflict between the different political and social groups.

In case of Australia, nothing much has changed in the daily lives of most Australian’s after Kevin Rudd ousted Julia Gillard from power, and the leadership change has not  greatly impacted on the lives of most. But in Egypt, a leadership crisis or change seems to have major implication for majority of the people. They have and still do suffer from economic and social issues that in Australia, where I am from, do not suffer on the scale as Egyptians do. Australia has a stable political and social system, with a constitution, which has protected the rights of its citizens for over 100 years, but in Egypt, this does not seem the case.

In Australia there is a peaceful manner in which most leaders are removed, and is reasonably orderly, with some short of rules governing a political coup, either through a general election, or a party ballot. But it seems in many countries around the world, political crises turns into almost a civil war, has been experienced in Egypt of the last few days, and even decades. 

The last few days has shown me that I am lucky that a political leadership change did not affect me personally and most of my fellow citizens. Of course, we will always suffer from quite mundane issues, like small rises in petrol or milk prices, or even a slight hike in our electricity bills, but compared to the situation in Egypt and other countries, facing political and social unrest, I feel quite lucky to be an Australian.

For me, I cannot imagine any short of mass violent protests on the streets of the Australian capital, Canberra, or even the military calling for the government and opposition parties to resolve any crises or they will step in and take charge of the country. For this I hope that in the future, Egypt and the many other courtiers around the world, suffering the extent of political and social unrest, that they can peacefully resolve their issues, and perhaps even one day be able to change leaders without so much violence and unrest.    

Can Kevin Rudd Save the Australian Labor Party?

Last Friday I wrote a blog post on the speculation of a leadership change in the Australian Labor party and government, arguing that I think would be unwise for both the Labor party and the nation. I still stand to this argument, even as of last night Kevin Rudd returned to the leadership of the party and will become Prime Minister again.

At 7pm last night, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard seemed to have had enough on the months, if not years of speculation and criticism of her performance as the nations leader, and chose to call caucus vote to decide her future. To me, and I suspect many others that such a call would be risky, as Kevin Rudd seemed to have the numbers to regain power, and this was the case. Rudd won last nights ballet 57 votes to Gillard’s 45, ending a three year term as Prime Minister for Gillard, and her political career, which as promised she will retire after the next election.

I think that the events of last night were a shame for the labor party and the nation, as I think that Gillard as Prime Minister was doing an ok job. She might have introduced policies that many Australians were told (by Tony Abbott) not to like, for example the Carbon tax, but at least she was trying to improve education for future generations and help the disabled. Although she did lie on a few issues, every leader in politics has done and will do the same in the future, even john Howard would have lied, as to gain votes.

The reinstatement of Kevin Rudd as Labor leader and Prime Minister will not necessarily return the party to government. Even if some of the media speculation is true, that Rudd will reform some of the Gillard policies on the carbon tax, education reform and on boarder protection, the voters are now sick of the infighting taking place in the Labor party and may change their support. Rudd also has a hard task of rebuilding the party, as many senior Cabinet members have resigned as the result of last night's caucus, further destabilizing the party. This I think in the long term will affect the preferences for voters at the next election.

The next few weeks and months will be interesting, to see how Rudd’s return can turn around a 29 percent primary support, and lead a party to at least not a total wipe out as predicted. Hopefully Rudd can prevent a Liberal majority, but at this stage, this looks unlikely.   

Should there be a leadership change in the Australian Labor Government?

As the federal election in Australia gets closer, so does the speculation of a leadership change in the Labor government. Ever since the 2010 election, the media and the Liberal party has been on a long campaign of speculating that any moment now, Prime Minister Julia Gillard will be removed as leader of the Labor party and government to be replaced by previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. On a couple of occasions the reports have been true with Rudd challenging Gillard in  caucus meetings, but in both cases failed to regain the leadership, most recently been in March this year.

“There are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” - Kevin Rudd on Sunrise

As the federal parliament sits for the last few weeks before the September election, the media and other sources are jumping over hoops to declare that Gillard will be ousted as Prime Minister, although supporters of both Gillard and Rudd have been frantic at playing down any leadership challenge. On a morning show this morning  Kevin Rudd said “there are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” Hopefully this is an indication that there will be no challenge next week, as been predicted by the media.

I agree with Labor backbencher Gary Gray’s assessment of the situation, that Rudd and his supporters should contest the leadership or “shut up.” This whole talk and rumors are getting a little tiresome to me and I suspect to the rest of Australia. All that I want is a party to govern without waking up one morning with the news of a new Prime Minister, or constant reports that there might be a leadership challenge.

The last think that the embattled Labor government needs is a disruptive leadership change, just a few months before an election. I think that Gillard is performing as good of a job as Kevin Rudd could do if he was able to take over as leader, which is a little late now.

If the polls are correct, opposition leader Tony Abbott and his Liberal party are predicted to win the September election and any leadership change this close to the ballet would likely not affect the outcome. So perhaps, before Rudd and his supporters try going for the top job they should sit back and consider that any action will probably not reinstate the Labor as the governing party. The only way of a victory for the government is for all party members to concentrate on supporting Gillard as Prime Minister and coming up with sound policy, demonstrating that they can still offer a better future for Australia, rather then a government led by Tony Abbott. 

Will gun control ever be achieved in the U.S?

U.S. President Barak Obama gets emotion as he address the nation on the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting
(Image source: Wiki Commons, credit to: Lawrence Jackson) 

Since last December's mass shooting of 20 children and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut, President Obama has been on a campaign to bring tougher laws into universal gun controls. 

The main obstacles to his plans have been a number of Republican Congressmen and women, and members of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who argue, that they will not support any legislation which contravenes their constitutional right to bear arms.

Obama’s plans are for universal background checks, a ban on automatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition cartridges. The problem that the President has is although 90 percent of the population support the need for tougher laws on gun controls, many Republicans in Congress, will only support universal background checks, as to prevent criminals and the mentally ill accessing a weapon. Republican Senators have come out this week and stated that they will try every political trick available, including filibusting the legislation, meaning it will need 60 percent approval rather then a simple majority vote.

I think, if 90 percent of Americans who have cherished the right to bear arms for over 300 years, but are now willing to compromise for the shake of preventing any more mass killings because of ideas of liberty, the U.S should not call itself a democracy. I do not understand the argument of the few who fear losing the right to bear arms, it is not like they will not be able to own a gun, all that Obama is proposing is for eliminating weapons that can kill many innocent men, women and children in one short moment.  

In Australia and other parts of the world, governments have legislated into law tough gun controls similar to the proposed ones in the US, which of course have not fully eliminated the use of guns in crimes, but have prevented mass killings on almost monthly bases as seen in the US. I hope in the end Obamas campaign, with the support of majority of the nation will be able to persuade the reluctant few to say yay on the floor of Congress.

Tony Abbot's climate change policy inconsistent

Opposition leader Tony Abbot has announced recently that if the Liberal party is elected at the end of this year, the party plan to keep some of the tax cuts and pensions in compensation for the carbon tax,introduced last July by the Labor government, despite having previously stated his party would scrap the tax.

This new carbon tax was introduced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Labor government on the 1^st July 2012. The initiative was to tax high polluting companies, with the aim of introducing behavioural change towards cleaner energy. Every tonne of CO2 emissions requires companies to buy permits. The money raised by the tax would be invested in clean energy projects and compensation for the public, who would be feeling the cost of increased energy and other living costs associated with the carbon tax.      

When the Labor government first introduced the carbon tax, Tony Abbot went on the attack accusing the government of not caring for hard working Australian’s who would suffer because of the new tax. He further argued that business large and small would experience economic hardship that would trickle down to ordinary citizens.

While Abbot is correct that living costs would increase because of the carbon tax, the impact on the public has not been as dire as predicted by the Liberal party. Last July when the tax was implemented, many declared that the scheme would not reduce pollution, however studies revealed that after only six months of the tax, emissions have dropped by 8.6 percent. If we can already see this amount of improvement in a short time, years to come, the slight impact on families and the economy would be outweighed by cleaner air in the future.

If Abbot is true to his word, that his party would keep some of the tax cuts and pension increases in compensation for the carbon tax, why not just keep the carbon tax in place? The money spent on the  compensation is funded by the money from the permits purchased by the high polluting companies; if  Abbot removes the tax, yet continue to keep some of the tax breaks and pension increases, how is he going to pay for all these incentives for the public vote? Likely chance if Abbot wins the next election, even in a landslide victory, he would not be able to scrap the tax as the Greens would still hold the balance power in the Senate. If I was Abbot, I would just leave the tax in place and make the future for our children a brighter one. 

Rise Up Australia Party is just another 'One Nation'

Australia thought they had enough of far-right parties been founded when One Nation crumbled in the early 2000’s, unfortunately this is not the case. A new party, Rise UP Australia (RUA), has been formed by former Family First senate candidate, evangelical Pastor Daniel Nalliah to contest the next federal election later this year.

The RUA parties main platform is based on protecting Christian values, including up holding Australia’s heritage as a Judeo-Christian nation, by calling for the prevention of Muslims entering the country and bring with them Sharia law. Also, the parties are against Homosexuals and are climate change skeptics.

As the situation in federal politics stands, where both major parties are losing support from the voting public, many experts including Associate Professor Haydon Manning are concluding that the RUA could gain more support then they may have had, if they began contesting in an election in the past. Their extremist views would be likened by large sections of Australian society, who hold some of the same views as the RUA ideology, especially preventing Muslims coming to Australia.

I am not a supporter of the RUA’s views, but I do maintain that they have the right to free of speech to a certain point, although I am alarmed that the RUA ideology will be increasingly attractive to many people, especially far-right Christians, who view Islam as a threat to both their religion and society. Contradiction is every where on the party's website. the party states that they will uphold freedom of religion, but they openly wish to cut the intake of Muslims coming to Australia on the grounds of protecting Australian society. In my opinion, this view undermines the meaning of ‘freedom of religion’, as far as the RUA would give other migrants the rights to come to Australia and the freedom to practice their religion, but not Muslims.   

This sort of outspoken attack on Islam will do nothing but turn Australia into an islamophobic nation, unwilling to accept diversity in our society and freedom of religion. Let’s hope for Australia’s future as a multicultural nation (meaning we have many different races, cultures and religion living as one), that the RUA and its ideology will disappear, the same as One Nation did a few years ago.   

Politicians Finally Wake Up to Same Sex Marriage

Image source: WikiCommons, photo by: Beatrice Much

In recent days politicians in Britain have voted in support of legislation allowing gay men and women the right to legally marry. Politicians in the Commons voted 400 to 175, giving a large majority for such a controversial Bill. Although almost half of the Conservative party and a number of Labour members voted against or abstained, progress for further equality in Britain has won a landmark result. All that needs to happen now is for a majority agreement in the House of Lords for the Bill to pass into law, but this is predicted as unlikely as most members are against such legislation.

Although the legislation has a tough road ahead to pass through the House of Lords, at least large sections from all major parties agree that same sex couples have the right to marry. This vote in the Commons will also promote further debate in Parliament and in our society on an issue that affects thousands of people.

Such support by British politicians for gay marriage rights and recent meaningful debates in Australia would have not been heard of over 20 years ago. Today, many countries including France and the United States are also talking about it and bringing the same sex marriage issue to society. Let’s hope this effort can stay on course and that countries such as Britain, Australia, French and the US will follow Canada, in legally allowing same sex marriages. 

The Australian Coalitions asylum seeker policy may break international law

The first group of irregular maritime arrivals arrived at the regional processing centre in Manus Island, PNG today. The 19 people, comprising families from Sri Lanka and Iran, departed Christmas Island late yesterday. Transfers to Manus Island and Nauru will continue in coming weeks and months.
(Source: WikiCommons | Photo credit: DIAC Images)

Coinciding with a United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) report, which condemns the conditions that detainees suffer on Manus Island, the Australian Coalition has announced that if they win the next election, they will reintroduce policy of ‘turning back the boats.’ But this policy has been viewed by both the UNHCR and legal experts as breaking international law and obligations as a contracted state to the refugee convention.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison has announced that the Coalition, if elected, they will instruct the Australian Navy to force suspected asylum seeker boats to return to Sri Lankan waters before they can enter Australian territorial waters. He also mentioned that if elected, Australia would help bolster the Sri Lankan Navy, so they can prevent boats leaving in the first place.

On top of this announcement fromthe opposition, the UNHCR has published a report outlining criticism against the poor conditions that asylum seeker detainees suffer on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. UNHCR's regional representative, Richard Towle and Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who visited the island detention centre last week have said that women and Children have to stay in the same facilities as single men in temporary housing, under hot and humid weather.

I think that if asylum seekers are that despite to risk their lives coming by boat, we in Australia, should as a first world country at least offer better conditions and facilities for asylum seekers. I do agree that we need to detain people arriving illegally for processing purposes, but surly we are humane enough to provide more then just tents and a few tarps.

On the policy announcement by the Opposition, I think that this policy is flawed both morally and politically. As Australia has a good record in providing overseas humanitarian assistants and promoting the protection of human rights, we have an obligation to continue this effort in the future, but bring back past failed policies would ruin the image of a good global citizen that thousands of Australian’s have worked hard to achieve.      

The Australian federal election has been called

Image source: Morgue File, photo by jppi

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has publicly announced that the Australian Federal election will take place on the 14th September 2013. This gives the Australian voters over seven months to decide which way they will vote and allow other political parties time to work on policies to persuade the public.

Gillard and her Labor government are well behind opposition leader Tony Abbot and his Liberal party in the polls; Gillard’s first priority would be to try to gain increased voters approval.

We may think that announcing a date for an federal election over seven months before, to be unusual in Australian politics, but Gillard’s tactics are well advised, and as the federal treasurer Wayne Swan has stated, that now we have a date set, speculation taking over debate can not be an excuse for Tony Abbot or any others not to have policies or costing in place by the election.

I think that Gillard and the Labor party will be challenged to win the next election and retain government. Over the last few years, issues of trust in Gillard’s government have made her a target for oppositions attacks that have allowed the Liberal Party to gain popularity by most of the voters.

Although the Liberal parties have performed better in the polls in the last few years, Tony Abbot is not a popular chose for Prime Minister, with most of the public liking Julia Gillard. From this analysis, the Liberal parties are likely to win the popular vote to be the next government, but Abbot would be seen as the man to win the election, because many voters seem to agree with his principles on asylum seekers and climate change, but he may not last a full term.

I think that Abbot needs more than just outdated policies and bring up the ‘trust issue’ every time he attacks Gillard and the government, instead draw up sound policy that will drive Australia and its people into the future.

What is going on with our politicians in Canberra?

Every week it seems that the Parliament house has become a school ground for bullying and personal attacks. Over the last few months, if not since Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot became the leaders of their parties, personal attacks have taken over debate, instead of issues that matter to most Australians.

Parliamentary sittings are becoming the soap opera that is Home and Away and Neighbours.

Last week, in light of the resignation of the House of Representatives Speaker Peter Slipper, who has been accused of sexual assault, by one of his male staff, the Parliament became a place where both Gillard and Abbot once again contrived to personal attacks. This time in a speech to Parliament, Gillard accused Abbot of sexism and of been a misogynist.

Although, I do agree with Gillard that Abbot does have a history of sexist comments and actions that where mentioned in her speech, I do think that all of these personal attacks by both parties need to come to an end. All sides of politics should be debating real issues facing the nation, rather then petty political point scoring that we have witnessed over the last few months.

Australia’s bid for seat in the United Nations Security Council

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Minster Bob Carr was in New York attending the annual United Nation (UN) leaders meeting last week, where they have been trying to gain support from other nations for Australia’s bid for a temporary two year non-permanent seat on the United Nation Security Council (UNSC).

Australia is bidding for a seat against Luxembourg and Finland. Both these nations began their campaigns to gain a seat eight years before Australia, giving them a clear advantage in drumming up support from other countries. Both Gillard and Carr are not letting this advantage halt Australia’s own chances of winning, arguing that Australia has a good record when it comes to participation in the UN, with many successful contributions to Peacekeeping operations in the past.  

As usual in politics, the campaign has not been without a few critics. Opposition leader Tony Abbot  criticised the bid,saying that Ms Gillard should be in Jakarta talking to the Indonesian government about the more important issue of stopping the boats, rather then trying to bid for a costly UNSC seat. Abbot went further, saying that “Australia’s pursuit of the temporary seat was a waste of money and distorted the nation’s foreign policy priorities.”

Although the campaign to gain a temporary seat cost an estimated $55 million, in my opinion the money spent will be worth it. Australia has as much of a good chance of winning the seat as the two other bidding nations. Australia has a good UN record, with regular contributions to peacekeeping operations and campaigning on behalf of smaller nations in the international community. Furthermore a UNSC seat would give Australia influence in some of the major global decisions that could be in the national interest both in our economy and diplomatic relations (such as, a long term, internationally coordinated plan of how to "stop the boats").

We will need to wait until October 18th when all 198 member states cast a secret ballot to decide who gains the Security Council seats.  

About that 'boat people ad'

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post criticising the Australian governments policy of reopening the immigration centres on Nauru and Manus Islands. Since then the government has launched a advertising initiative on YouTube to compliment the return to offshore processing of asylum seekers.

The initiative is to distribute an advert on You Tube and in DVD format, telling asylum seekers that arriving by boat will not give them or their families an advantage over those arriving legally or been processed in refugee camps. The advert will be translated into seven different languages and  be distributed on line and through Australian Embassies.

In my view, processing asylum seekers offshore and distributing a YouTube advertising will not prevent asylum seekers coming by boat to Australia. Even if the ad is translated in to seven different languages, most of the people being targeted by this ad will probably not have access to a computer or the internet to view this ad. Not to mention it has cost us a lot of money to produce.

Like the decision to open the Pacific Solution, this is just another band-aid solution to a complicated issue.

Australian forces need to stay in Afghanistan

Five Australian soldiers died last week; three were killed this week in a patrol base in the Oruzgan province in Afghanistan by a rogue Afghan soldier, and two were killed in a separate unrelated helicopter crash in Southern Afghanistan. The incident at the patrol base, known as a ‘green on blue’ attack by international forces, reopened the debate around the continuing mission of Australian forces in Afghanistan. 

Every time an Australian soldier is killed, especially by a Afghan soldier, debates and opinions are all over the media on the question whether Australian forces should leave early or stay until 2014 as planned, with some arguing that Australia should have not got involved in this mission in the first place, and that we should pull out all of our troops as soon as possible. 

On the other side of the debate, many defence experts, including former soldiers, as well asthe members of both the Liberal and Labour parties, argue that Australia needs to stay. Australia joined the NATO led mission back in 2001 for the purpose of removing terrorist groups and the Taliban from Afghanistan. Australia’s main mission has been to train the Afghan National Army (ANA), so that they can take over security in Oruzgan province, when Australian forces leave at the end of 2014.

In my opinion, while  the threat of terrorism around the world has not disappeared because of the continuing mission in Afghanistan, there was justification for Australia in committing troops to the international mission in the first place. 

Afghanistan had been the safe haven for terrorist groups like al-Quada, who are not native to Afghanistan, and who were perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in New York. Their radical methods have caused both local Afghanis and the international communities pain and suffering with their fundamental ideas. Thus as a committed member of the international community, we are obliged to participate in the mission to remove terrorist groups who attacked our international partners.

If Australia cut and run and leave our Afghan Army partners half trained, likely chance the Taliban would return to power. Instead, we should maintain our current troop numbers and finish the mission that we started, not just for a better future for the Afghan people, but also in respect for the diggers who have already lost their lives, showing that their deaths were not in vein.

Another Bad Asylum Seeker Policy by the Australian Government

Last week, the Gillard government, in my opinion, came up with a terrible asylum seeker policy, which is to  reinstate some of the former Liberal government’s ‘Pacific solution’ policies by reopening immigration detention centers on Nauru and Manus Island. Julia Gillard contacted Nauru with a formal request to resume asylum-seeker processing, on the advice from the expert panel on asylum seeker policies. 

I think that opting for a return to offshore detention is not sound policy by the government, but rather very desperate way to curtail to opposition pressure and a need for voting approval by the public. Sending asylum seekers to Nauru and Manus Island, out of view of the media and the public would not necessarily stop asylum seekers paying people smugglers for a passage to Australia. If people are that desperate to come to Australia in search for a better life, a few months or years on Nauru or Manus Island would probably not deter them, as last time an Australian government went to this much expense and effort to stop the boats, around 70 percent of Asylum seekers detained on Nauru and Manus Islands were eventually allowed to settle in Australia and New Zealand any way.         

Former PrimeMinister Malcolm Fraser offered a submission to the expert panel on asylumseeker policies, arguing that reopening centres on Nauru and Manus island in PNG, is a short term way of dealing with such an issue. He further stated in his that sending asylum seekers to these centres is costly in the long run and also no long term evidence that it stops the arrival of boats. He also argued that the Australian government should invest in joint cooperation with Malaysia and Indonesia to open more United Nations (UN) operated centres in these two countries. 

This would be a better solution as most asylum seekers use both Malaysia and Indonesia as a stepping stone to come to Australia. So investing in a joint UN and regional solution could prevent people paying smugglers lots of money to risk their lives and their families to travel to Australia, instead their claims could be processed even before leaving either Malaysia or Indonesia.