Logically Flawed: Abbott's Counter-Terrorism Strategy to Export Terrorists

From de Veer Magazine
Jump to: navigation, search
Tony Abbott, House of Representatives, Parliament, Canberra, Australia. Courtesy: Sydney Morning Herald

By Ann-Marie de Veer
Saturday 30 May 2015

Since that latter half of the 20th Century, following in the wake of World War II, the US is known to have created the majority of its enemies in furtherance of building its Empire. First among the foes to be annihilated was totalitarianism, a term that eloquently describes the political system adopted by most Western countries today, followed by communism, socialism and now terrorism. The doctrine of the US, and its vassal states throughout the West, has been, and largely still is, to engage whoever or whatever in economic, military or political combat on the pretext that the foe represents a serious threat to the Western way of life. Thus, the nominally democratic societies of the West and its general public, who are routinely manipulated by a subservient mainstream media into acquiescing to the demands of their despotic rulers, are claimed as the legitimate authority for the acts of the Empire.

Currently, the Abbott regime in Australia are in the process of introducing a raft of counter-terrorism measures, akin to the recently enacted, February 2015, legislation by Cameron's Conservatives in the UK, for a foe that scarcely exits.

It is widely acknowledged that there are no more than 100 Australian foreign fighters, on either side of the conflict, in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere: a small contingent by any measure. Similarly, back in Australia, the number of active sympathisers to the cause total less than 1000: an equally small group of the population, which in its last census of 2011, numbered 21.5 million. Thus, foreign fighters represent 0.000465% and active sympathisers 0.00465% of the population. The figures for the UK are 0.000793% and 0.00793% respectively.

Of course, the fact that foreign fighters and their sympathisers represent an almost insignificant portion of the population and their activities result in an equally insignificant cause of death is seldom mentioned. As research has proven, the average citizen in the West has a 2.5 in 1 chance of dying from a heart attack or a stroke, a 5 in 1 chance of dying from cancer, an 8,000 in 1 chance of being killed in a road accident, a 43,500 in 1 chance of being killed in an accident at work and a 500,000 in 1 chance of being killed in a railway accident. As the statistics go on to show, you are more likely to die from drowning in the bath, falling out of bed, falling off a ladder, food poisoning, a snake bite or being scalded to death by hot water than meeting your demise at the hands of a terrorist in a 9,300,000 in 1 chance. That death by terrorism is only slightly more probable than being killed by radiation from a nearby nuclear power station, by lightning or an aircraft crash does not meet the needs of the West's authoritarian rulers who are intent on manipulating public opinion and policy for their own felonious little plans.

Abbott Exports Terrorism

Nonetheless, Abbott's authoritarian regime has now introduced a counter-terrorism policy that will strip Australian citizenship from a national who engages in alleged terrorist activities: an administrative measure subject to the vagaries of the definition of terrorism and enacted without definitive proof of involvement in said acts. He, Abbott, also plans to extend the policy to include those nationals who have the right of citizenship to another country but not currently a citizen of that country: a policy that is clearly aimed at exporting the problem, if one exists, rather than dealing with it as any responsible nation state should.

The notion that any country would even consider granting citizenship to a known terrorist, regardless of the individuals right to citizenship of that country, is patently absurd.

The issue becomes even more complex when foreign fighters, now defined as illegal combatants for the purposes of enacting retribution under the new law, are of differing nationalities and allegiances: the assumption that the new legislation will be able to objectively discern an illegal combatant from a legal combatant is patently false given that the foreign policy of all countries is a subjective application of interests and benefit.

As the following two examples of dual nationals demonstrate, the new law is an ass:

An Iranian/Australian citizen joins the Iranian military. Iran is currently defined by the West as part of the Axis of Evil which means that Australia would classify the act as illegal. However, if the recruit goes on to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) then perhaps it is legal.
A Syrian/Australian citizen joins the Syrian military. Syria is currently engulfed in civil war as a direct result of a Western policy aimed at facilitating regime change which means that Australia would classify the act as illegal. However, if the recruit goes on to fight al-Qaeda or ISIL then perhaps it is legal.

Clearly Abbott's counter-terrorism strategy is logically flawed in that it seeks to export its terrorists, not unlike the first manifestations of the UK's new Counter Terrorism and Security Bill which originally flouted the UN Charter of Human Rights and other International laws and treaties. The UK has since back-tracked on its over-zealous rhetoric and now advocates a policy of managed return where the combatant may remain in exile for two years, or more, under a Temporary Exclusion Order before being repatriated to face legal retribution, if appropriate, and strict conditions designed to regulate their reintegration into society.

That Abbott, acting on a grossly over-exaggerated threat, is attempting to make political capital out of the issue by appearing to be tough on a subject of law and order is abundantly obvious. It is also obvious that he, and his regime, have neither fully researched nor adequately considered the ramifications of their actions in embarking on a programme that fails to take responsibility for the issue but merely seeks to export it.

Abbott's incompetence is a severe embarrassment to the people of Australia.

To bear responsibility in office is an obligation not a choice.
Ann-Marie de Veer