A few weeks ago Hamid Kehazaei, a 24 year old asylum seeker on Manus Island, cut his foot. Due to the Government’s cruel and petty practice of denying basic medical care to detainees the injury was left untreated. While a dab of antiseptic and a band aid was the only act of compassion required to save this man’s life, Hamid received no medical attention until he developed advanced septicaemia at which point he was airlifted to an Australian hospital where he died on arrival. Hamid’s family have agreed to donate his organs, statistically there is a 70% chance they will save the life of someone who thinks the Government is too soft on asylum seekers.
Yesterday Employment Minister and anti-abortion advocate Eric Abetz was asked to raise concerns at the forthcoming G20 summit about child labour (there are 168 million child labourers worldwide, 73 million between the ages of five and eleven). Abetz has refused to do so claiming the G20 agenda has already been set. Meanwhile Abetz, like the rest of his devoutly Christian colleagues in government continues to support the detention of 662 children in conditions described as amounting to torture and detrimental to their long-term mental health.
In the time that Tony Abbott has been describing the people in Syria and Iraq as being “intimidated by murderers” his own government has returned one asylum seeker to Syria and six to Iraq. So at what point does a government that behaves like this begin to talk about humanitarianism? When it’s a justification for going to war.
Of the seven Liberal prime ministers Australia has had only one, Malcolm Fraser, has not involved this country in a war. So it should come as no surprise that Abbott is now trying to shoehorn Australia into yet another military conflict. Abbott, aided by a weak and malleable opposition, has bypassed debate in parliament and committed Australian military personnel to another conflict without clear aims or strategy. Abbott argues that ISIS is a “cult of death” that must be stopped. He’s right, but the fact that the rise of ISIS is a direct consequence of the last time we were dragged into a conflict in that region is all the more reason why action against ISIS should be properly debated and planned.
From a military standpoint there are only two options for defeating ISIS. The first is putting large numbers of troops on the ground, resulting in a prolonged conflict, heavy casualties and little chance of success. The second and most likely option is airstrikes in conjunction with material support for ISIS’s opponents. Arming Kurdish forces will achieve little more than securing Kurdish held territory. The main opponents of ISIS are the brutal Assad regime and Al Qaida. Any international military action against ISIS will either directly or indirectly aid Assad and Al Qaida.
There are alternatives to defeating ISIS without aiding their regional opponents. ISIS continues to grow in strength by selling captured oil on the black market. At the moment those oil reserves are small but enough to generate about $US1 million a day in funding. Coordinated international action could severely curtail this funding for both ISIS and other violent organisations and regimes in the region. It’s not as sexy as military action but far more effective without the long term consequences.
This is the real reason Abbott is keen to commence military operations without debate. This has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns or even stopping ISIS. It’s about Abbott trying to portray himself as a strong man (because apparently sending other people off to fight a war while you stay home and take the credit is a strong thing to do) and it’s working. Despite the domestic train wreck that the Abbott government has become the Coalition continues to recover in the polls. Victory at the next election is all but assured. Here we go again.