Australia is facing a federal election on October 9th with the two main parties having little to separate them in domestic and economic policy. Where the Liberal and Labor parties differ greatly is in foreign policy. The Liberal Party adheres to the "Great and Powerful Friends" doctrine while the Labor Party pursues the doctrine of "Asian Engagement".

Since the September 11th attacks on the United States, terrorism has been thrust to the fore as the dominant security issue facing western nations. Australia has not had a terrorist attack on its shores; but two attacks in Bali and Jakarta have occurred in Indonesia that can be construed as terrorist attacks against Australia. Consequently terrorism for Australia is a foreign policy issue. On this basis the competing foreign policies of the Liberal Party and Labor Party can be compared.

The Great and Powerful Friends Doctrine

The incumbent Liberal Party formed government as a coalition with the National Party and has held government in the Australian House of Representatives since 1996. The Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister John Howard, is largely a centrist party with socially conservative leanings. The Liberal foreign policy, the "great and powerful friends" doctrine, is a very conservative policy. Other than the Hawke and Keating governments, all Australian governments in the 20th century have based their foreign policy decisions on this doctrine.

The "great and powerful friends" doctrine at its core, is where a medium sized nation places its foreign policy in submission to the dominant superpower of the day. This is done with the hope that by furthering the superpower's interests, the medium sized nation will be able to further its own interests via influence on the superpower's policies. By its very definition, this doctrine trades Australian foreign policy independence in return for being under the defence and economic umbrella of the superpower.

The earliest use of this doctrine was by Billy Hughes in 1919 at the Versailles meeting after World War I. Hughes was challenged by the American President, Woodrow Wilson, as to why he should be present at the table. Wilson thought that the British Foreign Minister, Lloyd George, represented the British Commonwealth's interests. Hughes claimed he represented, "60,000 dead" and Hughes; along with the Prime Minister of South Africa, was given a place at the table.

By his presence, Hughes attempted to further British policy and international prestige. In return Hughes wanted access to British markets and the protection of Australia by the Royal Navy. In 1919, eighty percent of Australian exports went to Britain, and there was genuine concern that Australia's main competitor in the British market - Canada - would get preferential treatment. Hughes' furthering British interests was seen by Australians as a down payment in return for open access to the British market and the protection of Australia by the Royal Navy.

This policy continued in the 1930's. Australia funded the development of Singapore as a naval fortress, with the idea that any belligerent would be held up in Singapore, giving the Royal Navy time to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific and save Australia. Consequently Australia did not bother developing a blue water navy and in 1942 when the Royal Navy was stretched across four oceans, Australia was left to fend for itself against Japan. This is when John Curtin uttered the words during a December 1941 speech;

Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.

From this point on, the United States replaced Britain as the the "great and powerful friend" in Australian foreign policy. This policy has since taken Australia through supporting the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency, the Vietnam War and in 2002 - the Second Gulf War. Australia was one of two nations who supported the Bush Administration unconditionally into the conflict. It should be noted, John Howard did so against Australian public opinion.

The Howard Years

The Hawke and Keating governments between 1983 and 1996 pursued the new and then quite radical foreign policy of "Asian Engagement". With John Howard's government coming to power, Australian foreign policy reverted back to the conservative philosophy of "great and powerful friends". This firmly roots Australia in the anglosphere. In the conservative mindview - all culture, nationalism and government policy stems from this anglophilic view. The Howard government began the "history wars" in part to reinforce the anglic history and heritage of Australia - possibly to make the policies of the anglosphere more palatable.

Terrorism became a wider security issue for Australia with the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington D.C. The corner stone of Australia's defence agreements in the Cold War had been ANZUS. Despite ANZUS losing its power when the US refused to honour its responsibilities with respect to New Zealand after a dispute in 1982, Australia still placed great importance in the document. With the attacks on US soil, John Howard activated a clause in the document with the claim that the US has been attacked and consequently Australia will defend the USA as per the agreement.

The ANZUS treaty is a cold war document and has little relevance to the 21st century. It is hard not to see Howard activating the agreement as a desperate attempt to keep the treaty relevant. Since September 2001, other than the US thanking Australia for honouring the agreement, there has been no other action on the treaty. It could be argued that Australian support in Afghanistan and Iraq are a result of ANZUS, but both actions were deliberated in Parliament and the Australian media before action was taken.

Nation Building and Failed States

The Howard Government has pursued four nation-building expeditions in the last few years. These have been East Timor, the Solomon Islands, Afghanistan and Iraq. East Timor and the Solomons were not related to terrorism, and Afghanistan was not fully under-taken by Australia as a nation-building task. Iraq did involve Australia adopting, at the very least the political rhetoric of the American view of Iraq as a nation-building exercise, even though Australia did not commit the necessary forces or money to have any effect on the desired outcome of a free and stable Iraq.

East Timor and the Solomons were Australian led missions, that gained their legitimacy from the nations involved. Before Australia committed to East Timor, Australian diplomacy, along with the diplomacy of other nations such as Thailand, managed to get Indonesia to agree with a UN mission to stabilize the former annexed province as it sought independence. East Timor has been held as an example of a successful UN mission. Australian leadership provided this.

The Solomons expedition was similar. Prompted by a report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) who advocated a nation-building exercise in the Solomons, Australia led a multi-national mission to the failed and lawless state. Like East Timor, this was done after legitimizing the expedition through securing a request from the government of the Solomon Islands to intervene. This is an ongoing mission but is progressing well.

Afghanistan and Iraq

The other two nation-building exercises Australia has embarked upon are Afghanistan and Iraq - both under US leadership. Australia made the point in the Afghan campaign that Australia was there for the "war on terror", not for Afghanistan, and managed to avoid any nation-building commitments. Since Australia is an uncritical supporter of American foreign policy, the success or failure of the nation-building exercise in Afghanistan may stick to Australia, despite only having a single officer attached to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).

Australia was one of three nations to initiate hostilities against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It was promoted in Australia as a necessity to disarm Hussein, and even with this rhetoric, Australians preferred that Australian involvement required the expeditionary cause to have United Nations (UN) legitimacy. Howard went against the electorate in the deployment to Iraq. Australia committed naval, aviation and special forces assets to the invasion. After hostilities the Australian contingent wound down to just over one thousand personnel. A small and ineffectual number in comparison to America's 140,000.

In both these instances these were definite moves by the Howard Government, using the "great and powerful friends" doctrine, against terrorism. Both Afghanistan and more importantly Iraq have been failures. Iraq under Hussein was not a haven for terrorists, but by September of 2004, it has become an chaotic failed state with porous borders. There is no stability in Iraq, and this failure lies completely at the hands of the US, UK and Australia.

Australia's success in Iraq is entirely dependent on American success. Australia has not committed the troops, nor the money to succeed in having Iraq as a secure and stable democracy. Richard Woolcott writes on the issue;

The reality is that Australia's presence, however capable and efficient our forces, can make no meaningful contribution to the two major objectives: the reconstruction of that country and the establishment of a viable democratic government there.

The East Timor and Solomons deployments both gained wider legitimacy before Australia committed. Both deployments were Australian led, with Australia providing the necessary troops, civilian personnel as well as sufficient logistical and economic resources for those expeditions to be a success. The Australian deployment in Iraq, had none of these positive attributes from the Howard Government in their uncritical support of American policy.

Asian Engagement

Australian history has largely been a valiant refusal to recognise Australian geography. Australians have tried to maintain an attachment to Europe and in particular the anglosphere. Gough Whitlam, later Prime Minister, was the first to see beyond this and he beat Richard Nixon in welcoming China to the global community. This localised and regionalized view of foreign policy was further developed under the Hawke and Keating governments as the doctrine of "Asian Engagement".

Paul Keating and Gareth Evans both sought to re-align Australia as an Asian nation, rather than an European nation that was a victim of geographical circumstance. Since three of Australia's biggest four export markets are Japan, China and South Korea, Keating set about strengthening regional trade through the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) forum. This was during a time of the "Tiger Nations" having remarkable economic growth until "contagion" struck in 1999.

The other aspect of "Asian Engagement" is the premise that the only way Australia's geographic vulnerabilities can be defended is through the promotion of a benign neighbourhood. As a trading nation with multi-national defence links, Australia's geographic vulnerabilities are the North-West Shelf, the Timor Sea and the Coral Sea. Through cultural, economic and defence links with Australia's Asian neighbours these vulnerabilities can be secured.

By contrast the "great and powerful friends" doctrine attempts to solve this issue through a strong Australian-American alliance where the United States Navy (USN) is used to ensure that Australia's vulnerabilities are secured. This assumes that the USN will always be available to maintain authority over those vulnerabilities.

Terrorism

Terrorism for Australia remains a foreign policy issue. The attacks that have been directed at Australia have taken place in Indonesia. The Bali bombing was directed at Australia and the Jakarta bombings had a dual target in trying to destabilize the Indonesia elections, as well as alienate Australian and Indonesia co-operation, through the targeting of the Australian embassy.

Indonesia has handled the terrorist attacks admirably. This young democracy has embraced the rule of law and rejected the prosecution of the Bali bombers under a back dated post-hoc anti-terrorist law. This was despite blood-curdling pressure from Australia. Indonesia has attacked the problem of terrorism as a civil matter for the police force and as a consequence they have been successful.

The Howard government in the wake of the Bali bombing has sought and found police co-operation with Indonesia in police matters. The five-powers defence agreement has also been upgraded to have terrorism added to its responsibilities. But these attempts at regional engagement have often been flouted by John Howard's often clumsy politics. There is the wider view of Howard as Bush's "Deputy Sherriff" in the South pacific. Consequently there is considerable distrust of his regional policies with Australia's neighbours.

Another clumsy diplomatic effort came during the current election campaign when Howard announced a neo-con platform of pre-emption against any terrorist bases in neighbouring nations. This brought a stern rebuke from Indonesian legislator Alvin Lee, who commented;

[John] Howard should learn to control himself, Indonesia and Australia are both victims. I strongly support increased cooperation among neighboring countries to fight terrorism but not attacks.

Labor's national security policy sees South East Asia as the highest priority in combating terrorism. The policy notes that Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia have set up maritime patrolling to guard against Jemaah Islamiah (JI) from bringing personnel, supplies and potentially weapons from the Phillipines to Indonesia. Australia did not join this effort, despite it being in Australia's interests and fitting Australian capability well.

Labor's policy also includes education funding for Indonesia to combat the Madrassas', which educate through fundamentalism. Labor will also help fund the Indonesian police in counter-terrorism. The Indonesia police under Suharto's regime were part of the military. An important aspect of the Labor doctrine is that it engages Australia's neighbours diplomatically, economically and culturally.

Conclusion

In terms of terrorism, Indonesia has been taking the hits for Australia, and has handled the stress of terrorism on their civil structures admirably. As a result, terrorism for Australia remains a foreign policy and regional issue.

The Liberal Government's foreign policy through the "great and powerful friends" doctrine has little basis over the last eighty years to recommend it. When faced with terrorism, the uncritical support of the US, and in particular the US adventure into Iraq has been a catastrophic failure. As a result of this pursuit of the bi-lateral Australian-American defence and foreign policy - defence and diplomatic relations between Australia and its neighbours have suffered. Diplomatic pragmatism being the main saving grace.

The Labor foreign policy of "Asian Engagement" is far more suited to the nature of terrorism that is practiced against Australia. Its focus on regional issues and relationships, are necessary in co-operative efforts to combat terrorist cells, international trafficking in arms and border security. The regional focus of Labor's foreign policy, and their stated policy of South East Asia being their primary focus in combatting terrorism, gives Labor's "Asian Engagement" doctrine the advantage in suppressing the likelihood of terrorist attacks against Australia.

Traditionally the Liberal Party has been seen by the electorate to be stronger on security and defence - but the aging and outmoded foreign policy of the Liberal Party has not translated to the current environment of terrorism. The Liberal Party has had three years to establish a terrorism policy, and their uncritical support of the US in Iraq and American foreign policy has been a failure. Where Howard's government has acted regionally, it has more often then not managed to alienate Australia's neighbours.

The Labor doctrine of "Asian Engagement" has its primary focus on Australia's region in the domains of diplomacy, economics and culture. Consequently it is better suited to deal with the current nature of terrorism that has been practiced against Australia. Indonesia will remain the frontline of terror for Australia. Constant, ongoing and comprehensive co-operation with - and support of, the Indonesian battle with terrorism will be required. Labor's style of foreign policy is less reactive than the Liberal policy and would reduce factors in the region that foster terrorism.

The recent announcement of Australia sending the SASR to Afghanistan along with a Provincial Reconstruction Team points to the unfocused nature of Australia's involvement in the American led "War on Terror". The Howard government chose to join the United States pursuit of terrorism as a military issue. This is in part due to the "Great and Powerful Friends" (GAPF) doctrine of foreign policy that the Liberal Party adheres to. But equally influential on our policy toward Afghanistan has been the weak manner in which Australia has contributed. We are not in control of the outcome, and consequentially the Howard government is just floating along with no focus, and no possible means to take the expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq to any conclusion. Australia needs to return to the policy of December 2001, pull out of Iraq, and focus its full energies on defeating Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan

In December of 2001, Australia sent the SASR over to Afghanistan to contribute in the over-throw of the Taliban. Australia's policy then was that our military were there for the "War on Terror", not for "Afghanistan". Recently explaining the recent resending of the SASR back to Afghanistan John Howard said;

When Australia withdrew those forces [SASR from Afghanistan in 2002], they were withdrawn against a background that it has always been the Australian position that we would provide some support of an elite kind at the sharp end, and that we were never disposed at the beginning to have that long-term - what I might loosely call - peacekeeping role ...

Between the deployments of the SASR in Afghanistan, Australian maintained a personnel of one in the country - a mine clearance officer. This was fitting with the original Australian policy. Our commitment was minimal, and contributed to the over-throw of the Taliban, unfortunately, in the US, the political climate changed and Afghanistan was quickly cast aside, and Iraq focused on. Australia's GAPF foreign policy meant that John Howard found himself joining the American and British governments in selling a war to an often cynical and unbelieving public.

Afghanistan was never followed through entirely to ensure that the Taliban and Al Queda would not resurge in the mountain ranges of the Pakistani border. Australia did not commit sufficient troops to pursue that goal without American and British support. As a consequence, when the SASR, along with American forces, were moved to the Iraqi border, the Taliban and Al Queda were able to regroup in the harsh eastern Afghan country.

Iraq

Australia followed the United States into Iraq, with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) committing aircraft, special forces, naval vessels and logistical support to the operation. This was quickly wound down after the initial success of the American march on Baghdad. After hostilities ceased the largest numbers of ADF members in the Gulf were an ANZAC Frigate and a Surface to Air Weapon System - totalling approximately 1600 troops. With the recent deployment of 450 additional troops this brings Australia's current commitment to approximately 2000 troops.

John Howard did not make any policy commitment on Iraq, preferring to balance the reticence of a public still not behind the conflict, and the pressure from the United States, Britain and other nations to commit greater forces. Like Afghanistan, it has meant that Australia can have no effect on the outcome, we are dependant upon American success for Australian success. Richard Woolcott commented;

The reality is that Australia's presence, however capable and efficient our forces, can make no meaningful contribution to the two major objectives: the reconstruction of that country [Iraq] and the establishment of a viable democratic government there.

Iraq is an American project that requires an American response - lots of troops, lots of money and lots of patience for an ongoing medium intensity conflict. Only the United States can handle that. Australia is best playing to its strengths, and focusing on Afghanistan.

The SASR are the very tip of the spear in the ADF's land capability, but the spear gets fat pretty quickly with the Australian Army - 1st RAR and 4th RAR both maintain commando battalions. These forces are ideally suited to the Afghanistan conflict which is a low intensity, low tempo, land based conflict requiring a high level of skill and training at the individual and platoon level. The Australian Army has always over-excelled in these situations, and presently has existing assets that fulfil that role perfectly.

Clarity of Policy

Australia's response in 2002 toward Afghanistan should have been an escalation of our commitment there with the purpose of eradicating Al Queda and the Taliban. Iraq was a diversion, a distraction that has defrayed Australian policy; leaving it unfocused. Australia needs the clarity of policy again that was present in December of 2001.

Australia needs to remove its forces from Iraq and make a commitment to the United States and Afghanistan that it will see the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan through to its natural conclusion - which is the eradication of Al Queda and Taliban operatives from the country.

We should deploy the commando battalions as well as another Regiment to Afghanistan along with the necessary Army and Air Force airlift capability. The SASR and Commando Battalions will be able to range independently while the RAR will have the capability to do insertion and extraction with Australian rotating and fixed blade air assets.

More importantly, Australia should establish a command and control structure in Afghanistan where Australian commanders are entirely in control of Australian forces. We have not seen the rise of a Monash or Williams in the recent campaigns because Australian forces have been deployed piecemeal under other nation's forces. Australian solutions to Australian problems are superior, and with Australia taking responsibility and ownership of the destruction of Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, it will allow Australian commanders to pursue that goal by managing the Australian forces at their most efficient and full capability.

Conclusion

The Australian troops would not be in Afghanistan for nation-building, manning checkpoints, or doing police work. They would be focused on a military goal, and an achievable outcome. This would not be politically untenable with the Australian public and would most likely enjoy greater popularity than the current piecemeal and ad-hoc deployment of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The deployment of the SASR, Commando Battalions and a RAR to Afghanistan along with the support infrastructure, including command and control as well as air assets, would allow Australia to pursue a focused policy that would have genuine value in the conflict with organized Wahabi Extremism. It would give Australia a national and political purpose beyond following whatever the great and powerful friend does. Australia would have ownership over a very important component of this conflict, one that is quantifiable, and one that has an publicly knowable ending.

cam

In Muslim nations that go to the ballot box, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, extremist political parties get crushed by voters. Those extremists are not able to earn more than a few percent of the vote. Most people want good government, the electricity to work, the trains to run on time, low crime and so forth. The people are wise, and with a proper outlet to let that wisdom flow to government, superior outcomes prevail. Voters choose secular political parties over religious ones, and moderate parties over extremists.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two best examples of failed states which breed extremist views. Both use the state to advocate an intolerant religious monoculture that is the basis for their authority. To reject the state, dissenters also reject the monoculture by choosing extremism. Lately Australia is establishing the "National Security State" and expanding the "Shadow State". In addition the Australian conservative commenteriat are seeking to establish a monoculture. These place us closer to the conditions that make Saudi Arabia such a problem. Only the principles of Australian Republicanism can save us now.

Got Secularism?

Much attention has been focused on Muslims as the perpetrators of terrorism. This assumes that Muslims are a homogeneous group, dominated by violent fundamental beliefs. This is incorrect, and a lazy stereotype. It is only on the fringes of Islam that there is a conflict with modernism, but this is not unique to Islam, witness the Christian reaction to stem cell research in the United States . Democratic nations such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia have overwhelmingly adopted secular governments when given the power to vote.

Indonesia contains the world's largest Muslim population in a nation-state. Nearly eighty percent of its 220 million population identify themselves as Muslim. In the 2004 Indonesian elections the Islamic party, Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP), was only able to gain 8% of the vote in Parliament and 3.1% in the Presidential race. In both cases losing out in majorities to secular candidates and parties. The Islamic Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) managed 10% of the parliamentary vote.

Bangladesh has a population of 144 million. Approximately eighty three percent of the population view themselves as Muslim, with Hindu being the next largest religion. In the 2001 elections , the Islamic political parties were not able to gain a majority, with the conservative Bangladesh Jatiyabadi Dal and social-democratic Bangladesh Awami League earning 87% of the vote combined.

Malaysia has a population of 23 million with approximately sixty three percent In the Dewan Rekyat (House of Representatives) election of 2004 the main secular party, Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu, collected 64% of the vote. The Islamic Party, Parti Islam se Malaysia, managed 15% and the democratic party, Parti Tindakan Demokratik, got 9%.

As the election results in Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia show, the people are wise and choose secular government over religious government. The will of the people is translating to the form of government in these democracies. The major problem is many nations that mix religion and state, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran is that they are either monarchies, autocracies or non-functioning democracies where voters are given no choice other than the existing ruling party.

Salafism and Saudi Arabia

Salafism or Wahabism is an Islamic movement traces its origins with the theologian, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab in the 16thC. Salafism seeks to purify Islam by returning Muslims to the original principles of Islam. Salafism seeks to remove innovations in religious practice and idolatry (polytheism). Muhammad bin Saud established the House of Saud, which today rules over Saudi Arabia. Saud married bin Abdul's daughter, and combined his rule with Salafism to establish wider legitimacy for the Sauds. Salafism was not a widely popular religious movement in Islam until it was propagated by the House of Saud, especially in the latter half of the 20thC with Saudi Arabia's immense oil wealth.

The 1970s saw a different dynamic enter the Middle East, many of the secular regimes, such as Egypt, Syria and Iraq failed in their promise, and became single party states designed to maintain the power of the present leaders. The autocratic governments also stifled all dissent. Opposition was either forced out of the country, driven underground into silence, or into violent extremism. Iran took the third path and a Shia theocracy came to power through revolution. Iran used the wealth and power of the state to expand the influence of their religious doctrine through the Middle East.

Salafism is based on Sunni beliefs. The Shia and Sunni denomination's of Islam are the two largest and represent a sectarian split based on who the successor was to the Prophet Muhammad. In the 1980, Saudi Arabia used the wealth of the state to expand Salafist teachings. From the 911 Commission ;

In the 1980s, awash in sudden oil wealth, Saudi Arabia competed with Shia Iran to promote its Sunni fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism. The Saudi government, always conscious of its duties as the custodian of Islam's holiest places, joined with wealthy Arabs from the Kingdom and other states bordering the Persian Gulf in donating money to build mosques and religious schools that could preach and teach their interpretation of Islamic doctrine.

The 1980s saw the expansion of madrassa . These are Islamic schools, most of which teach a non-violent purist Islamic tradition. A significant number, however, act as recruiting agents for violent extremism. Many of the worst madrassa were in Pakistan where mujahideen where trained for the Afghan war against the Soviets.

It is obvious that the rise of violent extremism arises from several sources. These are;

• State sponsorship
• Governments which derive their legitimacy and authority from religion
• Non-democratic regimes that do not tolerate dissent

It should be noted that the first issue, state sponsorship of violent extremism is not limited to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan. During the Afghan war the United States funded and trained many mujahideen's in Pakistan. This is a classic example of "Blowback" .

Violent Extremism and Saudi Arabia

Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi national until Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship. He came from the wealthy and large bin Laden family which has also disowned him due to his involvement in Al Qaeda and terrorism. Al Qaeda came from the mujahideen operations in Soviet invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden established the ideologically driven group to create conflict between Islam and the West. Al Qaeda used terrorism for this purpose.

Bin Laden set up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where it was believed that in the mid-1990s, seventy percent of recruits in the camps were from Saudi Arabia. This may have been related to Bin Laden's offer of mujahideen to protect Saudi Arabia being rejected in 1991 and Bin Laden soon after issuing a self-styled fatwa condemning the House of Saud and demanding Muslims drive American forces out of Saudi Arabia. The high number of Saudi nationals being involved in Al Queda translated into the September 11th attacks with fifteen of the nineteen hijackers being Said Arabian.

The recent Brookings Institute Iraq Index publication has another interesting statistic. Of foreign insurgents killed in Iraq, Saudi Arabians account for sixty eight percent with ninety-four having been killed.

It is estimated that the Iraqi insurgents number approximately 20,000. Of these around 1,000 of them are foreign fighters. In comparison to other nations, Saudi Arabia is over-represented when it comes to violent extremism.

Secular Liberalism

The Saudi Arabian example shows the secular liberalism is not the problem, it is state supported religion and autocratic secularism that is the cause of disruption and disturbance in the world. Saudi Arabia is one of the more extreme samples. Disaffected Saudi's are unable to change the state through voting, their monarchy being totally opposed to any form of popular merit. The Saudi schools teach a non-tolerant form of Salafism, and that is exported by Saudi money to madrassa internationally.

Since the state and Salafism are entwined, those that reject the state must also reject the Saudi form of Sunnism, and often do so by embracing a more radical, extreme and violent interpretation of Salafism. This added to the problem of sixty percent of the Middle East being under the age of twenty-four leads to a massive problem that is having global repercussions.

Once again Indonesia is the great modern hope, through the people voting their will, Indonesia has established a secular democracy that is embracing secular liberal and liberal democratic traditions. It is important to note, that it was the wisdom of the people that led Indonesia to the position. In 1999 the Indonesia people overthrew the Suharto dictatorship through a popular uprising, and then voted in secular, rather than religious parties.

Indonesia wanted good government, and gave themselves the environment to avoid the problems that Saudi Arabia, Iran and other parts of the Middle East face. When Indonesia was wracked by terrorism, it was quickly squashed through civil trials that were conducted openly and publicly. Terrorism was quickly deemed criminal and not tolerated by the justice system. But rather than military trials which are done privately and in secret, the civil judicial system has popular legitimacy and the involvement of jurors. It is far more legitimate than any military tribunal.

The Anti-Reformation

Labor and Liberalism won in the 20thC. The major parties in Australia are social-democratic. Both left and right continue to expand the state and social services. Under the supposedly conservative Liberal government in Australia the percent of GDP collected by the government in tax has increased from twenty-six percent to nearly thirty-five. Liberalism also won. Multi-culturalism, which is a logical outcome of maximum liberty was accepted, as was economic liberty through economic rationalism.

After September 11th, the United States decided to pursue terrorism as a military problem. The United Kingdom and Australia were quick to follow. All three nations realigned their domestic focus to what appears to a permanent "National Security State". No longer are cities, or nations defined by their society, their culture, their economy or their liberty; they are now defined by how secure they are. Advocates of the National Security State go as far to claim that a city or nation that is insecure is a failed one.

Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have expanded the private space of government by giving new powers to the "shadow state". A Republic comes from the Latin term publis . This means that government occupies the public space, not the private space of the despot, the tyrant or the autocrat. Western nations have used terrorism and the "National Security State" to collapse the public actions of government and hide them from public view.

In the United States, the Transport Security Agency has laws that the public must follow, but cannot read. Laws are now becoming secret . This makes them impossible to follow. The PATRIOT Act allows the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to act without civil oversight, or the knowledge of the suspect. The Act also enables the mixing of domestic and foreign intelligence; a result of the United States deciding on a military solution to terrorism.

Attacking Speech and Liberty

The United States has not acted to outlaw free speech, but the United Kingdom which has recently faced home-grown terrorism, now is. Foreigners that engage in hateful speech can be deported. From a BBC article ;

New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or, advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record. Consultation on the plans will finish this month.

Implied in many of the measures is that multi-culturalism has failed, and that the "National Security State" must be a unitary nation-state with one culture, one central government; and one purpose - security. Australian commentators have lead the attack on multi-culturalism, seeing secular liberalism as the feeding and breeding ground for terrorism. This rabid rhetoric is used as an excuse to establish the unitary "National Security State", Devine writes ;

Kowtowing to the unreasonable demands of intolerant minorities trying to impose their will on the majority is not going to safeguard Australia from "fanatical religious hate, exclusion, death and terror", as Parker seems to think. Quite the opposite.

Concepts of tolerance, freedom and loving one's neighbour as oneself don't exist in a vacuum, any more than "ethics" exist without a moral framework.

Trying to erase the long-established culture of Australia, permanently rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and replacing it with vapid, secularist nothingness is not going to help. It simply creates a vacuum for radical Islam to rush in and fill.

This is the authoritarian anti-liberal nonsense at its absolute worst. Devine's advocacy for one culture and one nation fail, simply because her vision of what constitutes a viable society, culture and nation cannot be achieved without government intervention. Lack of liberty is an unnatural state for a society and requires high energy and cost by the government to enforce. This is why autocracies are always doomed to failure, the more liberties that are taken, the higher the cost to the society and the more energy that is dissipated in maintain authoritarianism.

In the United States, the devoutly Christian Senator, Rick Santorum, was on radio recently discussing his book . Santorum rails against the Libertarian wing of the American Republican party. Like Devine he claims the Judeo-Christian tradition is the only way the United States can remain a viable society and culture. This requires government policy to follow religious doctrine. Like Devine, Santorum fails it, their vision of society is not possible without government's monopoly on violence and coercion to prop it up and sustain it.

Conclusion

Terrorism has been a foreign policy issue for Australia, with Indonesia taking the hits for us. We are fortunate we have such a wise and effective nation as Indonesia as our neighbour. Given the current environment of hysteria from the government and media, I would not be surprised if we bungled the prosecution of a terrorist attack. Creating political outcomes where only the justice inherent in our civil system was necessary.

The more civil liberties that are removed, the harder the state attempts to enforce monoculturalism, the greater the expansion of government into the private space of the "shadow state"; all place us closer to components that make failed states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran such hotbeds for extremist ideology.

The answer to terrorism in Australia is the secular liberalism of Australian Republicanism. Maximum liberty, tempered by individual rights and bound by inclusive and responsive minimal government is the best means to defeat terrorism and the environment that breeds and amplifies it.

cam

The Economist has an article on Lessons from Anarchy. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, anarchists conducted what would be called terrorism today. Extremists conducted bombings and assasinations in order to bring about the destruction of the central state. The interesting aspect is how different nation-states responded to the problem.

The Economist notes;

.. governments had good reason to respond. Austria, France, Italy, Spain and the United States all lost an empress, king, president or prime minister to anarchist assasinations. ... Then as now governments responded to the clamour for action with measures to criminalise anyone preaching or condoning violence and, if they were foreign, to keep them out of the country.

Britain had a history of being more tolerant to dissent than mainland Europe and did not suffer the bombings that mainland Europe underwent. it should be noted that Britain prior to the 1850s had not tortured, court-martialed or locked up seditionists without trial - its standard response was to send them to Australia.

The Economist makes the argument that the measures announced in Britain by Blair are the same as what was done in Europe to curb the anarchists, which only served to escalate and inflame anarchic passions.

In both Britain and America, new attacks are said to be inevitable. Yet every new attack is followed by new measures, as though such measures could have averted an inevitability had they been in place before. They could not, both logically and because terrorism cannot be defeated, as countries can be.

There have been several explosions in Indonesia. So far two explosions on Bali have been confirmed . This is on the same day as Australian federal and state politicians have restricted civil liberties in a response to no terrorism having occurred in Australia. Terrorism remains a foreign policy issue for Australia, not a domestic issue.

I have harped on about this in the past at k5 , on SSR , at wsacaucus.org and even at online opinion ; terrorism is a foreign policy issue for Australia that will not be solved by invading nations at the US's behest, or the furphy of restricting civil liberties in Australia.

To fight terrorism, we must embrace the Indonesian approach to it, which has been through police work and taking bombers through the Indonesian court system and making them face justice. Our military and "national-security state" style of approach has failed. Iraq is a bees nest, and the national-security state is a naked grab for federal government power.

The current Liberal and Labor leaders remain clueless in our current environment, preferring the heavy handed statist approach; using the blunt instrument of the military to achieve civil objectives, creating new areas of shadow government outside of the public domain, and wilfully discriminating against individuals and minorities with nothing more than suspicion and supposition. A sure path to tyranny.

The common political cry in the national security state is that civilisation is an angels breath away from toppling over due to a terrorist attack. This fear, uncertainty and doubt is untrue. Once again, and despite another attack on Bali, the Indonesian people are showing their great strength and integrity. They over-threw a tyrant and dictator on their own, a few terrorists are mosquito bites in comparison. However, Indonesians want to eradicate it from their lives. Ahmad Dhani is releasing his own "smart ideological bombs in return.

From the article;

One of the people watching this tragedy unfold was a brilliant young musician named Ahmad Dhani. Leader of the immensely popular rock band Dewa, Dhani began to use his musical platform to influence millions of fans in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia to resist the tide of religious extremism.

In response to Laskar Jihad's atrocities, and to discredit the appeal of fundamentalist ideology, Dhani composed the best-selling album "Laskar Cinta" ("Warriors of Love"). Released in November 2004, it quickly rose to the top of the charts as millions of young Indonesians embraced its message of love, peace and tolerance.

...

Yet rather than be intimidated, Dhani recently announced to the Indonesian press his plan to launch another "ideological smart bomb" -- in the form of a song that uses the revelatory tone of the Koran to declare: "Truth dwells in the hearts of those who love and are free of hatred; the hearts of those who hate . . . are possessed by Satan."

Dhani and his group are on the front lines of a global conflict, defending Islam from its fanatical hijackers. In a world all too often marred by hatred and violence committed in the name of religion, they seek to rescue an entire generation from Wahhabi-financed extremists whose goal is to transform Muslim youth into holy warriors and suicide bombers. For every young Indonesian seduced by the ideology of hatred and fanaticism -- including those responsible for the recent, awful attacks in Bali -- countless others see through the extremists' web of lies and hatred, in no small part thanks to the visionary courage of people like Ahmad Dhani.

I am continually amazed by the Indonesian people, we are fortunate to have such an invigorating people as our neighbours.

A popular absurd photoshop which floats around on the internet is the dynamite monkey. The image has an aggravated monkey sitting near dynamite with plunger, and infront of a sign which has emblazoned in red and yellow, "Don't taunt the dynamite monkey". The bottom right hand corner has a human hand with the middle finger extended, and the remaining fingers closed. This is a good analogy for what can happen when the shadow state is taunted - something John Howard did when publicly claiming Australia faced a terrorist attack.

The "Shadow State" is the underground policing and intelligence arms of Australia, these include ASIO, the SAS, parts of the AFP and other opaque and hidden arms of government tucked from public view under the auspices of national security. They are often used for political purposes, as it is difficult for the citizenry to query, or discover anything about these groups. A good recent example of this is the constant imagery seen on Australian television showing SAS, in black facemasks to hide their identity, dropping from Blackhawks in anti-terror operations.

More recently, John Howard brought an intelligence operation into public view, claiming that Australia was under imminent terrorist threat. This was despite the contradiction of the threat level not being raised, and his call for calm at the same time. This was a political stunt, where supposedly non-partisan arms of government were abused for political purposes. The Navy and Australian Defence Force was similarly abused during the Tampa Affair. There is a difference however when the shadow state is taunted and abused. While the military is used to a certain amount of public and political scrutiny, the shadow state is not.

The Plame Affair which is embroiling the United States is a modern example of what can happen when the Shadow State is taunted. The prosecution was performed with the support of the CIA, who, as an entity, were outraged that one of the NOCs was outed. A NOC takes a long time to develop, as the complicity and long lead times for informants are expensive and time consuming. In essence, a great deal of funding, training and capability was permenently destroyed by the leaking of a CIA operative to the media. The CIA was not impressed.

Now there is starting to appear a backlash in the Australian shadow state over John Howard and Phillip Ruddock exposing one of their operations to the public, for no prosecutorial gain - merely a political gain to put pressure on the Industrial Relations legislation being passed without scrutiny. This is parliamentary hi-jinks, using intelligence which cannot be disseminated by the public to any large degree, making an objective conclusion from the public impossible. It is theatre for the tabloids and mass media.

Politics has a long history of abusing the shadow-state for political purposes, sometimes successfully for the incumbent, such as the Petrov Affair; sometimes poorly, such as Watergate; and other times with great suffering, such as the installing of the dictator, Pinochet in Chile. Whether John Howard's abuse of ASIO and AFP intelligence will result in a public backlash is not clear, but governments usually collapse on their own hubris, arrogance, corruption and political exhaustion. It is more likely that this will be another notch against the Howard Government as it displays the hubris that John Howard himself railed against as leader of the opposition when the Keating Government controlled the federal executive.

cam

Nice sensationalist headline; "FA-18s to protect MCG" . How about instead we take a cue from Bruce Schneier .

From The Age article;

FA-18 fighter jets will patrol the skies over the Commonwealth Games opening and closing ceremonies as part of security measures announced this morning.

A 74-kilometre "security bubble", centred on the MCG, will restrict the operation of small and some commercial aircraft for the duration of the Games.

Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon warned that planes that stray into the zone may be shot down, but only as a last resort and after intense discussions.

I can understand their caution, however, Bruce Schneier has a different view;

Exactly two things have made airline travel safer since 9/11: reinforcement of cockpit doors, and passengers who now know that they may have to fight back. Everything else -- Secure Flight and Trusted Traveler included -- is security theater. We would all be a lot safer if, instead, we implemented enhanced baggage security -- both ensuring that a passenger's bags don't fly unless he does, and explosives screening for all baggage -- as well as background checks and increased screening for airport employees.

This is true, the dynamic changed after three aircraft were flown into buildings, the fourth plane fought back. It was a civil response to a civil issue. One of the great tragedies of September 11th was the militarization of the response to terror. All it has done has collapsed more power into government, who have created more problems with the military response to terror, which in gives government the belief it needs to be more radical in its legislative path to combat terror.

Civilians acting together are armed enough to overcome a terrorist. The State police are well enough armed as well, and in the rare cases they aren't, specialist forces like the Tactical Response Group are more than armed enough. we don't need the SASR, or any other military arm being involved. The state police, State Emergency Services as well as other civilian and state based groups can answer the call.

Such as anti-terror and anti-riot laws, America is retiring theirs .

The US Senate has not passed the renewal of some of the sunsetted provisions of the Patriot Act. From here ;

The filibuster, triggered by a bipartisan group of senators worried about protections for civil liberties, leaves major provisions of the Patriot Act in danger of expiring at the end of the year. The White House and majority leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, rejected a short-term extension of the law, which would have allowed time to negotiate changes early next year.

Before the vote, Frist and his leadership team were sure that they could get the 60 votes needed to end debate on the Patriot Act extension and bring the bill to a vote. But rank-and-file senators, some of them angry over a New York Times report that Bush had personally authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans' conversations and e-mails, didn't comply.

It is caught in a filibuster. US Senator, Russ Feingold, has been doing an Andrew Bartlett on the issue during the last week . Since Andrew is a permanent part of the Australian blogging landscape, the question needs to be asked, why isn't Russ Feingold doing it permanently too?

An ACNielson survey discovered one in five Australians ranked terrorism as their biggest concern in the next six months. This is in comparison to the United States and Asia who ranked terrorism quite low in their concerns.

According to the survey, five hundred Australians polled ranked in order of concern;

• 20% Terrorism
• 19% Job security
• 16% Health
• 15% Economy

The 20% figure was up from 7% in the previous ACNielson survey. By comparison, five percent ranked crime as the biggest concern, three percent political stability and two percent war.

Why are Australians so suddenly fearful of terrorism? The arrests in NSW and Victoria occurred in this period. Both of which were played to major political advantage at the federal and state levels. Apart from this, the Liberal government constantly plays its "tough on terrorism" card, while Labor harps on about Iraq making us "less safe".

By comparison, only seven percent rated terrorism as their main concern in the Asia-Pacific region. The global average for terrorism was also seven percent. We appear to be a very fearful society at the moment. The globe ranked the economy higher, with 22% claiming it as their main concern.

Gallup has a study on the greatest concerns of Americans . They break down as;

• 26% Iraq
• 24% Economy
• 10% Government/Politics/Administration
• 5% Crime
• 3% Terrorism

It is interesting that Australia's and America's perception or concerns of Iraq and Terrorism are almost exactly opposite.