Donald Trump and the GOP

The Fight for the Soul of Conservatism

Donald Trump. No name is more divisive in the 21^st century than his. He terrifies and titillates in equal measure. To the Ruling Elite Wall St Bankers he is a dangerous populist. To Social conservatives he is an immoral threat. To Neoconservatives he's a naive isolationist. How did it come to this?

The modern Republican Party consists of three main voting blocks governed by their different ideologies.

First are the real power behind the Republicans, Corporate America. Corporate America has one policy goal. To lower taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals. It's a goal they has been wildly successful at.

The second member of the triumvirate are Social Conservatives. These people are extremely concerned with issues such as Abortion and Same Sex Marriage. This group are willing to throw their not inconsiderable weight behind anyone who will back "Pro Life" positions.

Lastly we have the Foreign Policy Hawks or Neoconservatives. These militarists will back anyone who will assert American Power in the world. They are somewhat out of favour after the debacle of the Iraq war and there is a great deal of crossover between them and Corporate America, given that defense companies influence this group a great deal.

Any Republican Presidential candidate in the USA has to appease these three groups in order to be endorsed as the Republican nominee. Until now.

Inequality is rampant in the USA. Minimum wage in the USA is extremely low compared to other developed countries. The median wage has barely changed since 1973. All this has created a world where the vast majority of the population are doing worse than their parents and grandparents were.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/

The 2007 Global Financial Crisis coming hard on the heals of a costly, lengthy war has created a deeply angry populace ready and willing to try something outside the box.

Into this milieu steps Donald Trump. His promise is very specific. To "Make America Great Again". Pundits (myself included) massively underestimated the appeal of this message. But we shouldn't have. With hindsight the signs were there all along.

Trump gave voters something to grab a hold of. When he said "America doesn't win anymore." many people looked at their surroundings and agreed.

Furthermore Trump gave people a reason for their problems and a solution. If you are afraid of crime. It's because of Mexican immigrants. We'll fix it by building a wall. If you are afraid of terrorism, its Obama's softness on Foreign policy. Ill kill ISIS's families. (which would be a war-crime). Lost your job? It's because of China. I'll stand up for you.

It's no wonder Trump is popular. He has simply identified the problems ordinary Americans are facing and offered to solve them. That is something that mainstream Republicans can't do because they are beholden to Corporate America to lower wages and lower taxes. The policies of Corporate America in government (They own the Democrats just as much as the Republicans) have caused the very anxiety Trump is tapping into.

That's why Trump supporters when asked will usually site the fact that Trump is an outsider with an independent source of money for his campaign. He has perfected the art of separating himself from the New York Corporate Elite, while actually being part of the New York Corporate Elite.

It's also why sighting facts to Trump supporters won't work. There is a perception that the Corporate Elite fear a Trump presidency because he is on the average person's side and attack him mercilessly. Therefore any attack on Trump is viewed through this prism. The more people attack Trump, the more this perception is reinforced, the more popular he becomes.

This leads us to the Republican Convention. Trump is on track to win a majority of the 2472 Convention delegates. If he does I'm sure the Republican Party will nominate him, but if he does not win 1237 delegates the party will do a deal to ensure that all of the non Trump delegates vote for someone other than Trump. That will most likely be Ted Cruz, but it's by no means certain.

If the Republicans nominate anyone other than Trump, I expect riots. It will be viewed by Trump supporters as the Republican party keeping the good honest Americans down.

I feel sure that the Socially Conservative wing of the party could swallow it's pride and support Trump. They will side with him against Hillary Clinton.

The Neocon's have been somewhat dismayed by what they have heard from Trump. Trump has expressed skepticism over NATO, leading The Weekly Standard (The Neoconservative publication of Record) to publically muse about a third party candidate.

What does it all mean?

Let's be clear about Trump. The man is a charlatan. He incites people by stirring the baser elements of the human condition. Sexism, racism, fear, anger and xenophobia are all part of his shtick.

But Trump has tapped into something real. There are real issues here that are not being addressed. The Neoliberal market first approach has resulted in rising inequality and a decline in the standard of living for the average person on the street. There is a real risk of dangerous instability in the American political system which will continue until inequality returns to more reasonable levels for a first world nation.  

The Road To Ruin - What does it really say?

The Road to Ruin

By now most of you will have heard of and seen the media reaction to Nikky Savva's book The Road to Ruin. The media (of course) have focused on the salacious but unfounded thought of the Prime Minister and his Chief of Staff bonking away in the PM's office. This of course is to totally miss the point.

To be very clear the book never alleges an affair between Tony Abbott and Peta Credlin. There is simply no evidence for that. However the book does allege that the two of them (PM and Chief of Staff) were simply unsuitable for the job at hand.

It's important to recognise who Nikky Savva is. She's a successful columnist with the Australian. (the conservative broadsheet owned by Rupert Murdoch.) Her columns tend towards the sensible, with a clear right wing bias. She claims to have been more leftist in her youth, but has come more to the right wing with age. She is married to Malcolm Turnbull staffer Vincent Woolcock and it's through this prism that I tend to view this book.

One of the surprising things about this book is the amount of people who went on the record to talk about their time under the Abbott and Credlin regime. In my view such intimate access could only have come with Prime Ministerial approval. I'm not saying Savva wrote the book because Turnbull asked her to, but it's my guess that Turnbull felt that an explanation in the public sphere of why his coup was nessesary would benefit his Government.

The book paints a picture of Credlin as an emotional roller-coaster. A difficult person to work with for sure, but a master manipulator. Savva alleges that Credlin jealously guarded access to the Prime Minister, but also forced anyone she disliked to resign. There were two traits that seemed to get you on her list. First was intelligence. Anyone smarter than her was a threat, not an asset. The second was gender. She seemed to dislike powerful females.

The two (other) most powerful women in Abbott's life were of course his wife Margie and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party Julie Bishop. Both were subject to Credlin's wrath. Credlin sought to keep Margie as far from Abbott as possible, even going so far as to ask staff at Kiribilli House not to order food for Margie or to shop for the family.

Julie Bishop however could not be dismissed so easily. She was Foreign Minister and Deputy. Credlin interfered deeply in the policy realm. It was Credlin who vetoed Bishops trip to Lima Peru for a climate summit, stating that Bishop couldn't be trusted to hold the party line. Bishop was able to prevail on that occasion.

So to sum up Credlin was unable to set up the kind of environment that uses employees strengths. So focused on her own inadequacies, she moved on all the best performers, making herself the smarted person in the room. Then without a hint of irony she complained about the loss of institutional knowledge.

As for the public face of the debacle, Tony Abbott. He's portrayed as a dullard, under Credlin's thumb and caught in an unreal bubble of his own (and Credlin's) creation. She felt she had to babysit him whenever he was in the media spotlight, not to do or say something stupid. (like eat an onion for example). That led to a massive backlog in her in-tray, meaning work just didn't get done.

She would brief against other ministers to the media and he did nothing. Famously she let it be known that she had tried to stop him from knighting Prince Phillip. When the Prime Minister's own Chief of Staff is briefing against her boss, it is a sign that their relationship has failed. Abbott stalwartly held her close.

Abbott's inability to override her forceful personality was his downfall. His inability to assert himself as the boss was negligent on his part. In fact he referred to her as "the boss" in private. He could not bring himself to fire her, or at least move her on.

So, What do we make of this book?

On the whole I believe it. Nothing printed here seems to contradict the experience of those two years.

I must admit I have always felt a deep personal loathing of Tony Abbott. He makes my skin crawl. He reminded me of the bullies I used to know at the selective boys high school I attended. These were often the children of middle class professionals with higher than average IQ's who seemed to carry deep insecurities and only found relief from their inner demons through violence. While their IQ's were high, their EQ's or emotional intelligence were pathetic.

Tony Abbott, a Rhodes Scholar seems to have had a high IQ at some time, however his EQ remains minuscule. He's a shell of a man at the moment muttering "I could have won" to anyone who will listen and blames Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison for his demise. The actual author of the downfall of Tony Abbott can be placed squarely on the shoulders on one man.

Tony Abbott.

Democratic Primary Season - The Big Test

Democratic Primary Season – The Big Test

So far the Democratic Race of the nomination has provided little of the rancor, tempestuousness or stupidity of the Republican race. This is to be expected. Democratic base voters tend to be better educated, far more mellow and closer to reality than the Republican base.

To explain what I mean by that, just listen to an hour of NPR then an hour of right wing talk radio. The difference is stark. Liberals tend to be attracted to candidates who are conciliatory in their approach and speak in quiet tones. That being said, the malaise that causes the right wing to be attracted to be attracted to candidates like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is visible if you know where to look.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton held a large lead both in votes and money raised heading into the Iowa caucus', but was knocked off by the insurgent candidate, a fresh faced Senator from Illinois Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama was African American, born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father, he spent time as a child in Indonesia. He spoke in lofty ideals, articulated a far less arrogant foreign policy and seemed to offer an antidote to the backward, expansionist, intellectually stifled GW Bush years.

Voters flocked to the candidate in droves, testing the Clinton campaign in unexpected ways. The Obama campaign had learnt how to use the internet to drive the campaign. This dovetailed with his fresh face and masterful rhetoric. He rode a wave of hope all the way to the White House.

It seemed a new era had dawned in America. Fast forward to 2016 and Obama's hope seems to have been mugged by reality.

Obama provides a template for liberal candidates in America. Liberal voters want hope. They want to believe in something bigger than themselves. Obama provided them with this hope. That's how he won. That's what Bernie Sanders has to do to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Sanders is an interesting character to raise his head in US politics. A lifelong self proclaimed socialist, Sanders taps into the same malaise on the left, that pushes right wingers to follow Trump, Cruz et al.

Sanders' charm as the irritable Jewish grandfather is undeniable. His cut through style seems to say "I don't have time for all that political crap".

Millennials now outnumber baby boomers of voting age. They never experienced the cold war and the "red scare". They don't seem to fear the word "socialist" in quite the same way that baby boomers and gen xers do. Their life experience has been of a dysfunctional capitalist system pushing an expansionist foreign policy that has reaped a crop of massive social inequality, crumbling infrastructure, two wars, and precious little to show for it.

The truth of it is that Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, basically on the same page as Tony Blair was in the UK. In any other nation he would be considered a centrist or centre left at the very most, but for America this is a radical departure from the centre right of Hillary Clinton or Obama and the far right of the warmongering Bush/Cheney years.

Americans appear ready to embrace a new political reality, but Sanders still has an uphill climb. His job as the insurgent candidate is to associate his cut-through style with hope. Eight years of Obama beating his head against the "scorched earth" style of Congress championed by Senator Cruz should have made America much more cynical about "Hope and Change".

Ultimately that's good for Hilary Clinton. Clinton will be viewed as a safe pair of hands to place the Presidency into because the Republicans can't win the presidency while spouting anti Hispanic, anti-immigrant sentiment. The demographics are clear on this point. They were made clear in 2012 by Obama's victory over Mitt Romney. Actually if you remove George Bush's 2000 victory (which you should, the popular vote was won by Al Gore and more people voted for Gore in Florida than Bush), the Republicans have only won one Presidential Election since 1988, that of 2004. That election was special because it happened during a time of war.

After Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are finished with inciting the right, the Republicans will be so toxic in 2016 that no Republican will have a chance.

I don't know who will win the Republican primary in 2016, but it won't matter. That nominee will fail because he/she will be so radioactive in dealing with Trump/Cruz et.al. If it is Trump or Cruz they still won't win.

That leaves Clinton or Sanders. Clinton has to be the favorite, by far, but Sanders can win. The thought of a Sanders win and what the right would make of a self proclaimed socialist in the White House is amusing, given that they went "Ape Shit" over a black man in the oval office.

Republican Primary Season - Like Watching a Train Wreck in Slow Motion

Republican Primary Season – Like watching a Train Wreck in Slow Motion

Something rather bizarre seems to be happening in Republican circles. While Donald Trump continues to suck up all the political oxygen, a couple of weeks out from the Iowa Caucus Ted Cruz is actually leading in Iowa.

Ted Cruz is a ratbag. But he just might be the Republican Party Nominee for President. In his time in the US Senate he has plotted a course to destroy the US Government. Having him in the White House would make for an interesting four years. Disastrous, but interesting.

Why people would vote for Senator Cruz, a man who doesn't seem to want the Federal Government to conduct any business is beyond me, but the thought processes of Republican voters are rarely logical. Despite his denials, Cruz was one of the movers and shakers behind the government shutdown in 2013.

Cruz was born in Canada, a situation which has Obama birthers rushing to explain why Cruz IS eligable to run. Cruz seems to want nothing more than to watch the world burn. He refuses to believe global warming and would bomb the middle east "until the sand glowed".

Cruz doesn't believe in the sciene of Global Warming and now oversees NASA's budget. He is a case of government of the people for the people by the stupid.

Enough words have been expended on Trump, so I won't say anything further here.

Ben Carson is a twit. He seems to think that the pyramids of Giza are grain silo's. He denies evolution for crying out loud. A Neurosurgeon who denies evolution is running some serious cognitive dissonance. He won't explain his thoughts on climate change, basically because he has none. Or at least thats what I infer from this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/ben-carson-climate-change_560d9b3fe4b0dd85030b5354?section=australia

Jeb Bush is still in the race. Those with long memories remember that it was the Supreme Court of Florida, stacked with his appointees that delivered the Presidency to his brother George in 2000. I think that the party feels it owes a debt to Jeb Bush and that for now he is their preffered candidate. However the Republican base don't agree. Do we really need another Bush in the White House? The Republican establishment thnk so, but can see that the Republican base won't vote for another Bush. Nor should they, quite frankly.

John Kasich could be the establishment candidate. Sober and sensible. Everything you need in an establishment candidate. If he can get some attention he could be the one to unite the party establishment with it's base. That's a big "If" though.

Carly Fiorina is a moderate in that she believes the science that climate change is real and believes in "decriminalizing drug addiction and drug use", an admirable position to me, but not to the Republican base. I also believe her gender works against her with the base. She's most likely an also-ran.

Rick Santorum will get the evangelical vote, but has a natural ceiling. I don't think he can be the nominee.

That leads us to Marco Rubio. He's a Jeb Bush acolyte, so you know the Republican establishment will rally around him if Jeb Bush falls. I think he's the man who will accept the nomination and lose to Hillary Clinton or possibly Bernie Sanders.

Tomorrow – The Democrats.

Should we allow David Icke into Australia

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/17/david-icke-fans-say-his-australian-visa-application-is-being-deliberately-delayed?CMP=soc_567


Short answer is that in my opinion, even scumbags like Icke have the freedom of speech.

Who killed the PM?

And Now Our Nightmare Has Ended?

I haven't posted anything since Malcolm Turnbull took over as PM of Australia. The reason is simple. I had nothing to say you couldn't read hundreds of other places, including the mainstream media. I can change that now.

There has been a great deal of questioning of the media's role in Australian political life. Both traditional and social media have been blamed for the new unstable era of Australian politics. I think it's a nonsense pedaled by angry and scared politicians who barely comprehend what in happening and so blame the media, not their own behavior.

The day of 14/09/15 will always be remembered by political tragics as the day Tony Abbott fell, but whether it becomes a sea-change event in the life of our nation is still an open question.

The way the media in Australia treated this event was telling, best summed up by the reaction on Q&A when the results of the Liberal Party votes came through.

Listen to the audience reaction. First there is an audible intake of breath at the news the result was in, then a long sigh of relaxation as they realise the result has gone the way they hoped. Thank God for that they seemed to say. Even bearing in mind the bias of a Q&A audience (Malcolm Turnbull is the darling of Q&A crowd) it's pretty clear that Australia wanted this change. The voters of Canning that weekend certainly showed their appreciation, with election results rising 5% for the Coalition over predicted pre Turnbull levels.

Social media lit up with the #putoutyouronions hashtag going viral. This was an unpopular leader being given a bronx cheer on the way out. In short Australia wanted him gone.

Overseas the reaction was more concerned. Most non Australian media which covered the situation raised an important issue. Malcolm Turnbull was the 5 Australian PM in 5 years. What was causing this instability in a nation that has low(ish) unemployment, never entered recession during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), a fairly low level of debt (although action was necessary) and reasonably good fundamentals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipdFbtFVe7o

So what is going on here? After 3 PM's between 1983 and 2007, we have now had 5 between 2007 and today. Has the Australian public changed so much between 2007 and 2015 that new rules apply, or is there something else going on here?

I would suggest that while there have been many changes in Australian society since the turn of the century, social media has been the most powerful one. Many people now have their news filtered through Facebook. They wake up and check their account to see what has happened during the night and early morning. I know i do. My Facebook account is filled with stories from ABC, BBC, CNN and the Guardian to name just a few. What I don't see is The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, Fox News etc. Why not? Well 2 reasons:

1. The News Corp sites all have a paywall, so I can see the headline and the 1^st paragraph mostly, but that's it
2. The News Corp sites all give me a headache when I try to engage with ideas I fundamentally dislike at 7am.

My Facebook friends tend to skew in a similar political directions, so they are likely to share and like stories of the same political persuasion as me. From the refugee advocate who works for a minor political party and shares the latest stories of the horrific things going on in Detention Camps on Nauru and Manus Island to the Labor Party local government Councillor who is globally aware and posts about interesting labor market issues in North America in particular given he has a spouse from Canada. Indeed it's quite jarring when someone posts something not from this mindset.

It's easy to be caught in an echo chamber under these circumstances. But here's the thing. I think one thing tends to pull us out of an echo chamber better than any other force. Employment. Employment in a non-political role means you must interact with people with all different types of political opinion. Sometimes you meet people vilified in the mainstream and social media. Personally I developed real affection for the sassy Muslim girl who was always 1 step ahead of me as her manager, or the refugee, who was my boss and was the most driven man I have ever met. Then there was the damaged conservative bloke who had seen it all before and used to roll his eyes at my crazy ideas, but was quick with a joke and would explain to me how my idea would screw up everything..... It's these interactions that are the antidote to the echo chamber. Real people.

So I don't think that the echo chamber effect is responsible for some massive change in the Australian voting public. There are some Australians caught in an echo chamber, but they tend to be career politicians and media types(only interacting with people like them), retirees and the unemployed/disenfranchised. It's no coincidence that the stereotype of the typical racist is an old racist bloke listening to Ray Hadlee and Alan Jones. He gets no other input. Of course he's going to fear muslims and refugees, he's never met either and all the voices in his echochamber are afraid.

Which leads us back to the political class and the echo chamber. These people don't have the balancing factor that is employment. They only interact with like-minded individuals. It's this that I see as the cause of all the instability in recent years. Take the ousting of Kevin Rudd.

The Rudd Government had been quite popular and Kevin in particular was well liked as a PM. The Rudd Government had made Climate Change Action a top priority. Rudd forced then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull to back his plan for an ETS. Turnbull agreed, but was deposed in favor of Tony Abbott by the God fearing, science denying nutjobs that form the right in the Liberal Party.

How did these people become science denying idiots?

1. Self deception. If 97% of doctors say I have lung cancer and need chemotherapy, I should go to get the treatment I need. What i shouldn't do is up my cigarette intake and hope for the best.
2. The Echo Chamber. Everyone I know seems to agree with me that 97% of doctors are wrong and we should smoke more because we have bought shares in the tobacco company and a rising sea level lifts all boats....
3. The Death of Intellectual Curiosity. If you are deceiving yourself about the above, you won't want to hear anything about cancer at all because deep down you know you are deceiving yourself and any information that confirms the truth is both to be rejected and feared.

So the echo chamber can reinforce the self deception that we all indulge in from time to time. However when you are a powerful group faction in the Government it becomes highly dangerous and causes terrible damage.

Case One

Rudd has placed a great deal of work and hope on the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in 2009. He had even been given a special role by the chairman (The Danish PM) to rally support for real reform. Then the climate summit at Copenhagen happened. The world was not ready to come along with us. Rudd then fumbled around for some time before dropping climate change in the "too hard" basket. Voters were angry and his polling numbers dropped precipitously.

Most 1^st term governments become unpopular in Australia. John Howard in particular had a tough 1^st term with lousy polling, but was returned after laying out a plan for financial reform. The last public opinion poll of the 1^st Rudd Government had Labor leading 52%-48% Two Party Preferred (TPP). Rudd was still a popular PM in the prime of his power.

But Rudd had never been liked inside the party. He was abrasive, dismissive, made too many "captains calls" and became a hated man. An Anti Rudd faction began to form. They got there hands on some "dire" internal polling that claimed Rudd could not win the next election. So they gathered the numbers and rolled him. It was quick, clean and made Australia cry out in unison WHAT THE FUCK?

You will notice that the media played little to no role in Rudd's downfall. There was little speculation leading up to it, it was all the politicians. The Labor Party acted in a shallow, unprofessional, vindictive and immature fashion. So anyone counselling that the new instability since 2007 is the media's fault (be it mainstream media or social) has little evidence to back their theory from Rudd's demise.

Case Two

Julia Gillard took this shambles of a political party to minority government in the election of July 2010. Rudd refused to step down and resign from Parliament as deposed PM's are expected to do and his strategic leaking of sensitive information about Julia Gillard's positions in cabinet under his Prime Ministership. After the election he was appointed foreign minister, but he never really gave Gillard a chance to chart her own course because he was sniping and undermining her every step of the way. Which was his plan all along. Tony Abbott and Pete Credlin have both claimed credit for the defeat of Julia Gillard but the truth is the Liberal Party didnt defeat her. Rudd did. Of course the News Limited papers sniped every day and wore away at her, but without the underlying instability of having a highly popular PM doing everything he can to destroy her from the ministry and then the back bench, all the negativity from the media would have mattered very little. Julia's downfall was not due to the media reporting she was in trouble, the trouble was already there. Blonde bespectacled trouble. Rudd and his supporters are totally to blame for the instability from 2010-2013. Not Murdoch, not Twitter, but Kevin Rudd.

Case 3

Kevin Rudd took over again in 2013 in time for the 2013 election in an attempt to salvage the situation and "save the furniture". He got his wish. He defeated Julia Gillard and was PM again. For less then 3 months. He achieved his goal of destroying Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership but the fallout was completly predictable. The Australian voters were completly sick of the soap opera. Anyone arguing that the Labor Party deserved another term were kidding themselves and Australia gave them the kicking they deserved. Anyone blaming the media for Rudd's second demise really has issues with reality.

Case 4

Tony Abbott ran the worse government I can remember. He systematically destroyed his credibility with bizarre and ridiculous pronouncements. He had the most obvious case of echo chamber fever I have ever seen. Australia saw it to. He surrounded himself with like-minded individuals so much that his cabal seemed to regard anyone with slightly varying opinions to the norm as an enemy. Then he alienated anyone who disagreed with his bizarre views, picked fights with absolutly everyone and his administration blamed their mistakes on everybody but them. He had to go. Turnbull was the logical candidate to replace him, giving 5 PM's in 5 years. Once again, it wasn't Twitter, Facebook, the Fairfax Press or the ABC who brought Abbott down, it was his bizarre take on reality.

The Echo Chamber

To come full circle Turnbull was the PM change outside of the election that we wanted, indeed yearned for. Of course Turnbull's premiership was not universally greeted with joy.

http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-why-you-made-a-big-mistake-not-appreciating-tony-abbott/story-fnk0b216-1227549538389

Now Andrew Bolt can say we made a mistake if he wants, but that's because Bolt is a reality denying nutjob. He works in and actually contributes to the right wing nutty echo chamber. He says it's our fault, but he is wrong, it's not our fault we derided at Tony. He did dumb things. He deserved to be laughed at.

Of course, the fault lies with Tony. But there is one more thing. The fault of creating the echo chamber, that's Bolt and his mates at the Murdoch Press They are the enablers. They created the conditions where Abbott thought he was doing a reasonable job at reflecting the country's values, but people like Bolt, Ray Hadlee and Alan Jones don't speak for me. In fact they don't speak for the majority of Australian, they speak for a very small minority of Australia. That is the truth that Bolt, Hadlee and Ackerman forget, when they write, often it's not us the public at large they are persuading, its the politicians who are living in the echo chamber.

The Syrian Refugee Crisis

Syrian Refugee Crisis- How did we get here and what should we do now?

Its only now coming into the Australian public conscience that there is a refugee crisis in Syria. The war that caused this crisis started in 2011 within the context of the Arab Spring. However there is a wider context which should inform Australia's reaction.

From Rome to the Ottomans

Here is a map of the region in 1914. You'll notice that there is no Syria. The whole area of modern Syria was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. In fact no matter how far back into history you go, you won't find the state of Syria. You will find the area of Syria held by the Mamluks, Ayyubid, French, English and the Romans.

Anzac Day 1915

During WWI the Ottoman Turks aligned themselves with the Germany and Austria-Hungary. Winston Churchill conceived of a plan to knock the Ottoman Turks out of the war. So on April 25 1915 Allied forces landed on the Gallipolli Peninsula in Turkey.

A British led local campaign was also started against Ottoman holings in the Levant. This campaign was made famous by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia).

Australian forces were also involved in another campaign, winning a famous victory at Beersheba and peeling it off the Ottoman Empire (the charge of the Light Horsemen).

Faced with this kind of pressure both to their Imperial holdings and to their homeland the Ottomans fell back. The British and the French were very keen to gain a foothold in this area. Britain in particular had decided the oilfields of Mesopotamia (Iraq) would benefit from British rule especially.

Treaty of Versailles

At the end of the war Syria and Lebanon were given to France. The border between Syria and Iraq was layed down arbitrarily. The border took no account of the local populace's needs, only the needs of France and Britain were considered. People were cut off from one another in the same way that Berliners were when the Berlin wall went up.

France Breaks the Deal

In 1936 France and Syria negotiated a treaty of independence, however France refused to ratify it. This didn't stop the Syrians, who duly elected a President. The momentum for a free and Democratic Syria was building.

WWII

Syria passed to Vichy France in 1940. It was then re-occupied in 1941 by the British and Free French forces during WWII. Sadly the French forces had no intention of leaving.

A Difficult Birth

The French forces bombed Damascus and tried to arrest the democratically elected leaders of Syria in may 1945. However world opinion had turned and on 24 October 1945 The United Nations was ratified with Syria as a founding member. This is the founding date of the Syrian Republic. Remember that France, Syria's last colonial power fought tooth and nail every step of the journey\ towards independence, but happily was unable to stop the founding of the Syrian nation.

United Arab Republic

Syria joined with Egypt in 1958 to form the United Arab Republic. Egypt President Gamal Abdul Nassar was extremly popular for standing up to Britain and was advocating for a Pan Arab identity and nation. The national merger was ratified by popular referendum. However this experiment did not work as intended. It was brought to a halt in 1961 when disgruntled army officers enguaged in Coup D'etat to bring back the Syrian Republic. This pan arab failure, was self inflicted.

Self Inflicted Injuries

The 1960's were a tumultuous time in Syrian affairs. Their were military coups in 1961, 1963, 1966 and 1970. This final Coup was instituted by Hafez Al-Assad. His son Bashar Al-Assad is president of Syria to this day.

One Party State

Hafez Al-Assad instituted a one party state. He promoted people of his own ethnicity (alawite) in the intelligence agency. By doing this the Alawites could dominate the Sunni's approx 70% of the population with 15% approx Shia. A mirror image of Saddam Husseins Iraq. Al Assad's regime was brutal, but it did provide stability in a nation that needed it.

George Bush

In 2003 George W Bush's USA invaded Iraq. There actually were 4 nations who provided troops. The USA, The UK, Australia and Poland. The invasion was nominally to disarm Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, but in truth it was a campaign to defeat Saddam Hussein and gain access to the same oil fields that the UK had coveted 85 years before. A third stated objective was to plant a western style democracy in the middle east.

Win The War But Lose The Peace

The Alliance had no problem brushing aside the forces of Saddam Hussein s Iraq. However, once the Alliance held the nation it was difficult thing to control it. As Saddam Hussein knew only too well, Iraq was a disparate set of peoples, who had no real bond to remain together in a nation. It could only be held down by violence and fear. Soon the country erupted into chaos.

ISIS in Iraq

Iraq was held down by the Sunni minority. Some 30% or so of the population controlled the other 70%. when the USA implemented a voting republic, it failed to conceive the danger. The majority Shiites formed by far the largest group in the Iraqi Parliament and elected the President. The Shiite President was unable to work with the Sunni's. Being in the minority, the Sunni's worried that it was only a matter of time until the Shiites (whom they had ruled since the treaty of Versailles) turned on them and committed genocide. This is the catalyst which makes ISIS so dangerous, they feel if they lose, they will be wiped out.

Back to Syria

Remember those borders between states laid down in 1919? When Syria was running smoothly, it could still manage to keep the undesirables out. But then the Arab Spring happened. Suddenly the majority Sunni's were marching on the streets. The government cracked down hard. The reason was simple and logical. They knew they were the minority and they believed that if they allowed the majority to rule there might well be a genocide committed on them. That's why chemical weapons were used so early in the conflict. It also destroyed Syria's capability to keep the border closed to the warriors of the civil war in Iraq.

Unification

So we had a minority Sunni militia fearing genocide in Iraq (ISIS) and we had a majority Sunni militia who had been the target of WMD's in Syria. We also had a porous border between the 2 nations so that the 2 wars unified into one enormous CLUSTERFUCK.

Back to the Original Question

So how are we in Australia to react to the refugee crisis erupting out of Syria now. Well I'd suggest some self reflection for a start. I would suggest that we have been used by the dominate empires of the day in their empire building. However, some nations seem to have a special responsibility to the Syrian people today.

Debt of Empire - France

France really should be taking a larger amount of the refugees. From 1920 until 1950 France fought for the right to exploit the Syrian people and land for it's resources. Now is the time to pay that debt.

Debt of Stupidity – USA

What in God's name George W Bush and his idiotic VP Dick Cheney thought they would accomplish when they invaded Iraq and de-stabilised the whole region will be a question that vexes historians thousands of years from now. The debt of stupidity has come due. It's time for the USA to pay through showing it's humanity, not its engines of war. 

Debt of Ages – Turkey

I would say that Turkey owes Syria a great deal and it's time to pay up, but then look at the nation doing the heavy lifting here.....

Debt of Enabling – Britain

Britain helped France in peeling Syria away from the Ottoman Empire. It also helped the USA in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A special mention for the nation who sent in soldiers in to take over Iraq in 1920 and then sent their great grandsons and daughters back there in 2003. Learning nothing in the preceding 83 years. This crisis comes at a time when Britain is troubled by isolationist ratbags(some of them in the government), but humanity needs to prevail and the debt needs to be paid.

Debt of Fear

Australia has meddled in middle eastern affairs almost since federation. A nation on the far side of the world, we fought hard to open up Syria for western plunder. We campaigned in Palestine, Turkey and Iraq for oil Britain and the USA. Why did we do this? Ultimately I think we did it because we were afraid of the world without our big protector, so were always at their beck and call. It's a shame we are so afraid, but also means we owe Syria. Suffering from a leader who makes George Bush look like Albert Einstein whether humanity will prevail here is definitely an open question.