8th October2022
Social Action Australia
Please see www.socialactionaustralia.com
You are cordially invited to a talk to be given by Harald Schmautz entitled:
“Europe at the end of the first quarter of the century”
Harald is the former Chairman of Germany’s pre-eminent monarchist organisation Tradition und Leben and is a respected journalist who is well placed to talk on contemporary Europe.
As the title of Harald’s address suggests, Europe is now facing steep problems which the speaker’s talk will analyse. These challenges encompass the threat of a nuclear conflict arising from the Russo-Ukrainian War, the ensuing economic dislocation caused by rising gas prices and the consequent rise of populist parties in Europe.
Harald, as a monarchist, will also pay tribute to Elizabeth II and cite the challenges which Denmark’s Queen Margrethe II currently faces. The speaker will also talk about the potential danger of separatism in Europe as well as border tensions between Greece and Turkey. The latter nation’s designs on predominately Kurdish northern Iraq and Ankara’s support for Azerbaijan against Armenia will also be discussed.
LOCATION
- Harald’s talk will be held at:
The Hawthorn Library, Room One on the Ground Floor
ADDRESS
- 584-586 Glenferrie Road, Hawthorn –
DATE
- Friday the 18th of November 2022, 7:00 pm for a 7:30 pm start.
ADMISSION:
$10
RSVP:
- Please email advice of your attendance by November 16th to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
As supper will be served, please advise of any dietary requirements (vegan, vegetarian, gluten-free, etc.) when you notify of your attendance.
LEARN MORESOCIALISM VERSUS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
An essay by Dr Joe Sampson for Social Action Australia, 2022.
I will use the Macquarie Dictionary definitions of “Socialism” and “Social Democracy” as a starting point in my essay. The Macquarie Dictionary defines “Socialism” as a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of ownership of the means of production, capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole”. The Macquarie Dictionary defines “Social Democracy” as a belief in, or a social system based on a limited form of Socialism achieved by gradual reform through electoral and parliamentary procedures”. As Socialism and Social Democracy are contrasted with Capitalism I give the Macquarie Dictionary definition of “Capitalism”, which is “a system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are in large measure privately owned”.
Using such definitions the Australian Labor Party would be regarded as a Social Democratic party ; in its constitution it states “The Australian Labor Party is a Democratic Socialist party”; it goes on to say that the ALP “has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields”. As the ALP advocates a limited form of ownership by the government (and hence by implication the community) it is not fully Socialist. Similarly the Australian Greens would be regarded as a Social Democratic party. The term “Democratic Socialist” is sometimes used interchangeably with “Social Democrat” and also with “Welfare Capitalist”; so the Social Democratic state is regarded as a half way house between a total Socialist state and a laissez-faire Capitalist state.
The dictionary definition can be expanded to say that Social Democracy is a mixed economy system , in which some of means of production are privately owned, some are publicly owned and where the state heavily regulates the economy and has an active welfare system (including providing health, education and pensions) in place to correct for the worst problems inherent in Capitalism like inequality, cyclic instability, or the profit motive encouraging people to do things against the public interest.
Modern socialism began in early 19th century Britain and France as a reaction against the excesses of 18th and 19th Century Capitalism. As a result a number of Socialist parties arose in various countries. While some advocated overthrow of the State and total or almost total nationalisation and called themselves Communist parties other parties advocated the coming into power of Socialist parties by parliamentary means and eventually came to advocate only partial nationalisation and were known as Social Democratic parties.
Proponents of Social Democracy say that it combines the best features of Socialism and Capitalism. Total Socialists criticise Social Democracy saying that as it allows some Capitalism it is not stable. Proponents of Capitalism say that it is the most productive system; in the Australian Liberal Party document entitled “Our Beliefs” it is stated that “wherever possible, Government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals – not Government are the true creators of wealth and employment”. This Liberal Party statement is not accurate – Government enterprises can create wealth. While Social Democrats believe that Capitalism can be humanised with economic and social interventions (such as regulations and social welfare programs) that promote equality and social justice, Socialists say that Capitalism can never be sufficiently humanised and that equality in a Capitalist society is not possible. Socialists see exploitation as central to Capitalism whereas Anthony Crosland in “The Future of Socialism” (1956) argued that under modern Capitalism the old style exploitative relationship of owner/manager versus worker has been replaced by the practice of scientific management with ownership divorced from control and professional managers were more interested in efficient running of businesses rather than exploitation. Social Democrats aim to create policies within a Capitalist system that curb inequality, poverty and oppression of underprivileged groups but Socialists say that these issues can never be fully resolved under Capitalism. While Social Democrats maintain that Capitalism and democracy are compatible Socialists believe that Capitalism is inherently incompatible with democracy and believe that true democracy can be achieved only under Socialism.
One criticism of Socialism is that Socialist models are inefficient (e.g. in the Soviet Union there was sometimes a shortage of goods in shops). Some critics argue that countries where the means of production are nationalised are less prosperous than those where the the means of production are in private hands.(e.g. in 1991 the GDP per capita in the Soviet Union was 36% of that of the USA). Others argue that Socialism reduces work incentives (because workers do not receive rewards for work well done) and reduce efficiency through the elimination of the profit and loss mechanism and a free price system and reliance on central planning. They also argue that Socialism stagnates technology due to competition being stifled. Some critics say that Socialism is undemocratic because it does not allow people to set up their own businesses.
Socialists have counter-argued that Socialism does not necessarily imply central planning and is consistent with a market economy. Some Socialists have argued that a certain degree of efficiency should be sacrificed for the sake of economic equality or other social goals. For example they compare Cuba with the U.S.A. – while the former has a much lower GNP per capita than the latter it has free medical care while the latter has not. They further argue that market systems have a natural tendency toward monopoly or oligopoly in major industries, leading to a distortion of prices, and that a public monopoly is better than a private one. Also, they claim that a Socialist approach can mitigate the role of externalities in pricing (e.g. pollution, climate change). Some Socialists have made the case for Socialism being better to able to manage the environment than Capitalism.
The forms of government in Communist Party states such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao Zedong, Eastern Europe, etc. were Socialist according to their rulers because all or most of the economy was under government control. Critics said that their governments were not truly Socialist as they were not run by the community but rather the Communist Party. A number of critics have said that Communist Party states were oppressive totalitarian states with mass executions, forced collectivisation, gulags and were inefficient with famines and regular shortages of goods under their centralised planned economies. These states were either one party states or states in which only the Communist Party had any real power. One can advocate a Socialist system in which there is a multi party democracy with freedom of speech; i.e. a democratic Socialism rather than an authoritarian Socialism; Gorbachev was moving towards such a system with his concept of Glasnost.
In Australia the ALP and Greens promote Social Democracy, which involves a mixed economy whereas the Liberals and Nationals while also in favour of a mixed economy favour more power to the Capitalists. These four parties capture a large part of the vote. Minor parties such as One Nation still favour a mixed economy. There are a few Socialist parties which very small numbers of people support, e.g. at the recent Victorian election the Socialists got only about 1% of the vote.
In recent decades in Australia Labor governments both at state and federal level have privatised a lot of government enterprises whereas the Greens have opposed privatisation, which means that the Greens are closer to total Socialism than the ALP. The Liberals have also privatised a lot of public enterprises. Polls have consistently shown that most Australians oppose privatisation, including a majority of Labor voters and a majority of Liberal voters.
Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn both self identify as Democratic Socialists. Corbyn would have moved the UK closer to a Socialist society by renationalising British Rail and the energy companies. Bernie Sanders said “To me socialism doesn’t mean state ownership of everything, by any means, ; it means creating a nation, and a world in which all human beings have a decent standard of living”; he also said: “I think that democratic socialism means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interests.”
Proponents of Socialism, Social Democracy and Capitalism all say that their system is the best for obtaining high standards of living, health, education and social justice. What does the evidence say? The countries with the highest quality of life were announced by the not-for-profit organisation Social Progress Imperative in 2016.were.Scandinavian nations, which are Social Democracies, scored highly in the "Social Progress Index," but more surprising are the very large countries which came lower down the list — suggesting that a strong GDP per capita is not the only gauge for a high standard of living. Despite this, all of the top 19 countries are developed nations — so having a strong economy clearly has an impact. The "Social Progress Index" collates the scores of three main indexes: (i) Basic Human Needs, which includes medical care, sanitation, and shelter; (ii) Foundations of Wellbeing, which covers education, access to technology, and life expectancy; (iii)Opportunity, which looks at personal rights, freedom of choice, and general tolerance. The index then adds the three different factors together, before giving each nation a score out of 100. The ranking of the countries was:
- Finland; 2. Canada; 3. Denmark; 4. Australia; 5. Switzerland; 6. Sweden; 7. Norway; 8. Netherlands; 9. United Kingdom; 10. Iceland; equal 10th. New Zealand; 12. Ireland; 13. Austria; 14. Japan; 15. Germany; 16. Belgium; 17. Spain;18. France; 19. United States of America.
All these countries have multi party democracies with mixed economies with varying degrees of private ownership and of public ownership with both Social Democratic and Capitalist political parties. None of the five Communist Party countries, which all call themselves Socialist, are on this list. So the evidence seems to be that countries with Social Democratic or Capitalist parties have higher quality of life than countries with Socialist parties in power.
But then some people might say that these nineteen countries would fare better with democratically elected Socialist parties in power and that the Communist Party countries all have undemocratic Socialist parties in power.
REFERENCES
Social Democracy (Wikipedia article)
Socialism (Wikipedia article)
LEARN MOREThe current war in Ukraine could be considered as being broadly analogous to fascist Italy’s 1935-1936 invasion of Ethiopia. There you had a nation which was militarily stronger than the country it was invading. The victim nation (i.e., Ethiopia) fought back heroically against the odds and in doing so won world-wide respect. Alas, Ethiopia eventually succumbed to fascist Italy and the ensuing guerrilla insurgency was subsequently brutally extinguished.
The narrative of the Ethiopian-Italian War seemed all the more tragic because it was apparent that the world could do little to help Ethiopia (or Abyssinia as it was then called) except to express its moral outrage and to offer in-principle solidarity. However, had international oil sanctions been imposed on fascist Italy then Mussolini would have been forced to abandon his invasion because the hit to the Italian economy would have been economically unsustainable.
Similarly, if North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nations such as Poland provided Ukraine with its MiG fighter jet planes (as it appeared it wished to do before the NATO / US leadership stopped the proposal) then Ukraine may well have stood a better chance of successfully defending itself, or at least have damaged the Russian military effort even more than it has been able to do so far. The fact that President Joe Biden vetoed the proposal whereby the United States would have lent Poland its military aircraft so that Polish MiGs could have been passed onto Ukraine is not surprising given his recent abandonment of Afghanistan.
It is therefore, now imperative that European NATO nations, particularly former members of the Warsaw Pact, move quickly and if necessary without American approval to provide Ukraine with military aircraft. Such a supply would give the Ukrainians a viable prospect of actually beating back the Russian invasion or at the very least stalemating the war, which could lead to severe repercussions for Putin.
If Poland was to pass on its MiGs to Ukraine, then nations such as Hungary and/or the Czech Republic could loan Warsaw their military aircraft instead of having to rely on the United States to do so. The situation illustrates the need for a degree of inter-European co-operation without American approval, because if Putin gets away with occupying Ukraine, then he will most likely utilize that occupied nation as a springboard base to subsequently invade Central and Eastern Europe sometime in the future (perhaps in five to ten years’ time -if not earlier) once he has brutally subdued Ukraine.
While it is true that international sanctions will hit the Russian economy hard and adversely affect its people’s living standards, this is unlikely to halt or even to deter Putin. The Russian dictator has an extensive apparatus of repression in place which he is now effectively applying to crush domestic dissent. Furthermore, communist mainland China will provide the Russian Federation with sufficient economic support to withstand international sanctions in the short to medium term, if not beyond.
Of course, Russia should itself be careful not to become too dependent upon Communist China for the Federation may eventually become a Chinese satellite with its Siberian territory becoming subject to Chinese Communist encroachment. For in truth Russia’s ultimate destiny rests with the European Union (EU). The hope is that one day Russia will turn to the West by joining the EU. Therefore, it is imperative that the Russian Federation be saved from itself and the stupidity of Putin’s policies by Ukraine being provided with military aircraft from the former Warsaw Pact nations now in NATO as a matter of urgency. Putin’s aggression in Ukraine has to be countered now before it continues to spread.
From an Australian perspective the Russian invasion of Ukraine also draws into focus the need for this nation to have parliamentarians of the high standard of the late Kimberley Kitching (1970 to 2022). This recently deceased Victorian Labor Party senator was a staunch supporter of human rights and democracy around the world. As such the late senator was the most outspoken voice in federal parliament against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), speaking out in favour of human rights in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xingjiang Province.
Not only did Senator Kitching give her verbal support to human rights around the world but she also followed her words with actions by helping ensure that the Australian federal parliament passed the Magnitsky Act which sanctions individuals associated with despotic regimes. Also, in a domestic context she was a staunch defender of trade union and employee rights.
Although Social Action Australia (SAA) has expressed its support for the Morrison government’s 2022 re-election (‘Why the Morrison Government should be Re-Elected’) this social democratic operation would have voiced its support for Senator Kitching’s re-election had she lived and been pre-selected. Hopefully, the Victorian ALP will honour the memory of this outstanding late senator by pre-selecting someone with similar perspectives and the courage to express them.
There can be little doubt that had Senator Kitching lived, she would not only be giving her verbal support for Ukraine but also advocating practical measures to help that nation to survive its current trials. One such practical measure which would vitally assist Ukraine is for the EU to provide the fighter planes as requested by Ukraine.
LEARN MORE
As a social democratic operation, Social Action Australia (SAA) is orientated towards, but not necessarily committed to, the election of Labor state and federal governments. It is with this qualification in mind that SAA advocates the re-election of the Morrison federal coalition government in the upcoming May 2022 federal election.
This advocacy is made on a two-fold basis. First, this federal coalition government has a positive record to draw on based upon its adroit handling of the Covid pandemic. Second, that the alternative federal opposition led by Anthony Albanese is too great a threat to Australia’s current constitutional federal-state arrangements.
It should also not be forgotten that Australia is still in a socio-economically precarious position as this nation transitions away from the danger-zone of the massive negative impact of the Covid pandemic. Accordingly, an Albanese government cannot be trusted to competently adapt to the dangerous socio-economic situation that Australia finds itself in because the federal opposition leader hails from the hard left of the Australian Labor Party (ALP).
Reference will therefore be made in this article to the veiled economic incompetence of the Daniel Andrews government in Victoria with regard to the ticking public debt bomb because this state government is something of a template which an Albanese government would most probably utilise.
Why is Australia so Prosperous?
Australia is domestically and internationally known as the ‘lucky country’ as since the turn of the twentieth century this nation has consistently had a continuously high standard of living. A major determinant of this outcome has been consistent international demand for Australia’s primary resources such as wool, beef and minerals. However, other nations also endowed with ample primary resources (such as Argentina at the turn of the twentieth century) have not fared as well as Australia.
A secret to Australia’s success has been that with the massive population influx which commenced with the 1850s gold rushes came a strong services sector, which continues to this very day and continues to underpin and sustains Australia’s still generally high standard of living.
The supply chains which were established throughout the Australian colonies in the nineteenth century based upon primary produce drove the generation of a goods and services sector in which there were comparatively high paying jobs. The dependence upon the primary sector became glaringly apparent when the floor price for wool in the 1890s temporarily collapsed, leading to Australia’s worst economic crisis to date. The 1890s economic depression also precipitated massive industrial unrest.
To adapt to the socio-economic consequences of the 1890s Great Depression the political leaders of the then Australian colonies moved the continent toward federation which became a reality in early 1901. Paul Kelly in his very important 1992 book The End of Certainty (Allen and Unwin) wrote that the respective colonies of Victoria and New South Wales responded differently to the 1850s gold rush induced population explosion. Victoria responded by adopting an economically protectionist approach while New South Wales adopted a free trade regime.
The Protectionist State: 1904 to 1983
The protectionist paradigm was thankfully adopted federally by Australia’s political leaders and in part was crucially facilitated by the landmark passage of The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the 1904 Act) which ushered in centralized wage fixing following the issuing of a minimum wage which came with the famous Harvester Judgement of 1907.
Business was prepared to accept what became Australian industrial arbitration because this practice allowed craft-based Australian trade unions to effectively represent their members’ interests without having to resort to often unnecessary industrial disputation[1].
To complement and/or reinforce state intervention in wage determination the new nation also imposed tariffs on imported goods, with federal governments also later providing industry assistance to some sectors of the economy especially in the manufacturing sector.
The protectionist state which Australia became between the early 1900s and the 1980s also diversified the economy by value-adding to the primary sector. Consequently, when the was a decline in international demand for Australia’s primary products there was a domestic manufacturing sector to fall back upon which also helped to underpin the employment generating services sector.
The Morrison Government Saved the Vital Service Sector
At this juncture it should be pointed out that the Morrison/Frydenberg federal government in 2020 and 2021 took the correct neo-protectionist policy approach of rescuing the services sector of the economy via the application of the Job Keeper programme in response to the effect of the Covid pandemic.
Job Keeper was essentially a wages subsidy which saved thousands of small to medium businesses in the private sector which otherwise would have ‘gone to the wall’. The payment of subsidised wages prevented the collapse of the services sector of the Australian economy in which an estimated seven hundred thousand jobs were directly saved and probably even more indirectly if an applicable multiplier effect is calculated.
It is ironic, but in all probability the neo-liberal Labor governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating probably would not have applied an economically interventionist programme such as Job Keeper. This is because, Australia adopted an economic rationalist (sic) paradigm following the March 1983 election of the Hawke ALP federal government which had the ultimate effect of greatly diminishing Australia’s domestic manufacturing sector.
Consequently, this nation has become even more reliant upon its services sector. In this context, the Covid pandemic has probably posed a greater economic challenge then when the international price for Australian wool collapsed in the 1890s, because the services sector was so fundamentally threatened by the Covid pandemic.
Australia under the Morrison government has been able to finance the Job Keeper and Job Seeker programmes, due to massive borrowings so that the nation’s foreign debt now stands at over a trillion Australian dollars!
This colossal foreign public debt is currently not a threat to Australia’s socio-economic well-being while this nation retains a strong credit rating (currently triple A) so that international lenders are still prepared to lend to Australia. The maintenance of a healthy credit rating also assists Australia to service its now massive public foreign debt.
Factors which have helped underpin this credit rating have included the current high international demand for Australian primary product exports such as iron ore as well as domestic factors including Australia’s excellent banking sector.
However, Australia’s astronomically high public debt means that it will soon have to be reined in while the country’s economic fundamentals remain sound. The Morrison government will be able to pay down the foreign debt without resort to high interest rates and avoid an inflationary spiral by pursuing policies which continue to safeguard its current strong credit rating.
Victoria’s Ticking Debt Bomb
By contrast, a possible indication of how an Albanese government might mishandle Australia’s fragile economic situation is the high level of public debt which the Victorian state ALP government has accumulated. Victoria by 2025 will owe an estimated $160 billion in state debt![2].
The associated blowout in public works spending will serve to further complicate the servicing of Victoria’s public debt so that it well may be a blessing in disguise for the Victorian Liberals if they lose the November 2022 state election.
The economic picture for Victoria may well be dire but this is not yet clearly apparent to the public. Therefore, the subsequent question emerges as to whether the ALP can be trusted at a federal level in a time when it is imperative that Australia’s strong credit rating be preserved with the foreign debt so high and in a time of great international uncertainty?
An Albanese government is an unknown quantity to the public because the federal opposition leader has made himself such a ‘small target’ by dealing in platitudes as to what a future government of his would actually do without being prepared at this stage to provide a specific policy programme. By contrast the public have a clearer picture as to what Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg stand for, particularly with regard to national security.
The Chinese Communist Party Challenge
It is stating the obvious that Australia faces a profound national security concern with Communist China, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Prime Minister Morrison has been correct to call into question Anthony Albanese’s national security credentials with regard to mainland China.
This is particularly so in the context of the comments of former Labor prime minister, Paul Keating, that nations such as Australia should acquiesce to communist mainland China’s forcibly taking over the Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC). Let Anthony Albanese publicly repudiate Keating’s perspective on Taiwan as a first sign to indicate that the ALP can be trusted to stand up to communist China.
It is now all the more imperative that the federal Opposition Leader publicly support the ROC in the wake of Russia’s February 2022 heinous invasion of Ukraine. Arguably, this egregious violation of international law might not have occurred had US president; Joe Biden not precipitously abandoned the Afghan people to the Taliban thereby signalling weakness to Moscow and Beijing.
Similarly, an Albanese government might convey weakness to the Chinese Communist Party by adopting the Keating line with regard to Taiwan. The Morrison government by contrast has effectively moved to safeguard Australia’s national security by forming the AUKUS alliance constating of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The recent development of the Quad formation of Australia, the United States, India and Japan is also testament to the Morrison government’s proactive approach to foreign affairs and national security. Such an approach is required if Australia is to safeguard her independence from an increasingly bellicose and threatening communist mainland China.
It is a matter of urgency that a bi-partisan commitment to sending lethal military aid to the Republic of China on Taiwan should be in place in the event that the ROC comes under attack from the communist mainland. A pre-emptive public commitment by Prime Minister Morrison that Australia will come to Taiwan’s aid should be unequivocally supported by the federal Labor leader.
The Threat of Regionalisation
With the stakes so high it is bewildering that there well may be elements within the federal coalition which covertly desires an Albanese government on the basis that it will introduce Regionalisation. The issue of Regionalisation has been analysed in previous SAA articles as well as the associated issue of past inter-party collusion to advance the
Regionalisation agenda.
The most dramatic example of this interparty collusion was the 2007 fall of the Howard government to try and ensure that there would be a transition to Regionalisation so that states would be gradually phased out. The replacement of Kevin Rudd as prime minister in June 2010 by Julia Gillard stifled the regionalisation agenda as did Malcolm Turnbull’s September 2015 deposition of Tony Abbott as prime minister.
Not only did the respective advents of Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull delay the introduction of Regionalisation but both these leaders were opposed by political forces that want to dismember Australian states, (especially the Greens Party). It should not be forgotten that in late 2009 Malcolm Turnbull lost the Liberal Party leadership due to his courageous support for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
Almost inexplicably, the Greens voted down the proposed ETS legislation in their balance of power position in the Senate in early 2010. However, nearly two years later the Greens voted in favour of a Carbon Tax which consequently doomed the Gillard government. Perhaps, the Greens regarded a Carbon Tax as being a superior environmental tool to that of an ETS to counter climate change.
However, another interpretation of the Greens’ voting intentions was that their senior leadership desired there to be a future Abbott government so that Regionalisation could later be introduced. As analysed in previous SAA articles there was probable collusion between anti-state elements within the two major parties to co-ordinate the outcome of the August 2010 federal election. Knowing this, Prime Minister Julia Gillard made her public declaration during the campaign that if elected, a government which she led would not introduce a carbon tax.
The breaking of this no Carbon Tax promise by Prime Minister Gillard with the passage of such legislation in early 2012 destined the Gillard government to future political demise. It is widely accepted that, had Julia Gillard faced the voters in 2013 as prime minister, her government would have been voted out in a landslide.
The Greens could have saved the Gillard government by voting against a Carbon Tax on the basis of their advocating an ETS. This did not occur because the senior leadership of the Greens probably wanted Regionalisation introduced by an Abbott government. Thankfully, Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister in September 2015 so that the agenda of dismembering Australian states was disrupted.
The respective advent of strong-willed persons such as Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister may have disrupted the onset of the Regionalisation agenda but has not yet necessarily terminated it. There can be little doubt that should Anthony Albanese put his mind to it as prime minister that he will aggressively pursue a Regionalisation agenda in accordance with the long- term strategy of the hard left of Australian politics.
The Hard Left’s Long-Term Agenda
A brief overview of the hard left’s strategy for political power and economic control is therefore undertaken to gain a possible insight into the probable policy direction of an Albanese government.
The hard left of the Labor Party and the union movement back in the 1980s enunciated a policy of trade union amalgamation with the 1988 release of the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ (ACTU) Australia Reconstructed report.
The model of Australian trade unionism fundamentally changed in the 1990s, as in accordance with Australia Reconstructed there was a transition away from craft-based trade unions to super amalgamated trade unions.
The transition to amalgamated trade unions saw a mass exodus of union members from the Australian union movement in the 1990s because the former membership did not feel an affinity with and were isolated by the new amalgamated unions.
Nevertheless, the creation of so-called super unions such as the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) saw a new concentration of power develop within the Socialist Left (SL) of the ALP. It is therefore a plausible scenario that under an Albanese government that regional fiefdoms could be created which would be dominated by hard-left industry unions such as the CFMEU[3].
Consequently, an Albanese government could intend to implement Regionalisation according to a hard-left agenda because post-Morrison Liberals and Nationals will have little if any political leverage to affect the Regionalisation process.
Why Regionalisation Threatens the Coalition Parties
Furthermore, those elements within the Liberal and the Nationals parties which hanker for Regionalisation should realize that their respective parties will probably not survive the onset of Regionalisation in their current form. This is because political parties such as One Nation and the United Australia Party (UAP) will probably gain access to the patronage of the newly created super regional councils. As a result of this, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party and the UAP will be able to institutionalize themselves within Australian politics at the expense of the Liberal and Nationals parties.
The Nationals Party is even more at risk than the Liberal Party should Regionalisation be introduced. In addition to the One Nation threat to the Nationals, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party (SFF) will impose an existential threat to the Nationals’ existence if able to gain access to the expected regional largess arising from the adoption of Regionalisation generally. and the subsequent creation of new regional fiefdoms throughout the country.
For in truth, the Liberal and Nationals parties owe their dominance, if not their survival, to the operation of a Westminster parliamentary system which is conducive to a two-party political system. Should Regionalisation be introduced at the expense of states (which have Westminister parliamentary systems) then Australia will transition from a two-party political system to a multi-party system.
Sabotage Watch
The above scenario is canvassed on the basis that officials and politicians within the Liberal and Nationals parties will sabotage the Morrison government’s 2022 re-election campaign. Already, the UAP have run newspaper ads referring to Barnaby Joyce having ‘trashed’ Scott Morrison which is an indication that discord on the centre-right can actually constitute (or be converted into) political sabotage.
The UAP may have failed to win any federal parliamentary seats in the 2019 federal election despite all the money the money spent by Clive Palmer. Nevertheless, it does appear that the UAP’s 2019 campaign contributed to the Morrison government’s upset election victory.
That the UAP’s advertising, now adopting a clearer anti-coalition stance for the 2022 federal election campaign, may well be an indication that Clive Palmer expects an Albanese government to introduce Regionalisation. A party such as the UAP will find it easier to win access to political patronage via super regional councils than in winning parliamentary representation in state and federal parliaments.
Similarly, it may seem politically more expedient for the Nationals to off-set their relatively low (but reliable) nationwide voting base by helping to engineer a transition to Regionalisation. Nevertheless, there are still leaders within the coalition who will fight to actually win the 2022 federal election including the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.
The late January 2022 memorial service in Melbourne for former Liberal federal leader Andrew Peacock (who died in April 2021) was probably utilized by Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg as an opportunity to lobby senior Victorian Liberals to remain loyal to their party in the upcoming federal election.
Similarly, the Western Australian Liberals (who were reduced to a mere two seats in the state lower house of parliament following the March 2021 state election) may see Regionalisation as an attractive option. However, all Regionalisation will ultimately serve to accomplish is the institutionalisation of the dominance of the hard left (i.e., the SL of the ALP and the Greens) in Australian politics with the political right becoming rent-seeking scavengers.
Regionalisation will be a gradual but inexorable process as resources and functions will be transferred from the states to new super-regional councils which will ultimately be linked to Canberra. Such a process will be a protracted affair which will endanger Australia’s sound credit rating, the maintenance of which will be essential if this nation is to economically survive and service the massive public foreign debt which accrued due to the Covid pandemic.
With socio-economic stakes so high the Morrison government cannot afford to lose the May 2022 federal election. Because Prime Minister Morrison controls the federal and state Liberal Party secretariats, he can wage a bona fide campaign to overcome potential sabotage within the coalition’s ranks.
Therefore, the Morrison government can conduct a truthful election campaign warning the Australian people of the economic dangers which Australia is currently facing due to the astronomical public foreign debt that this nation has accumulated as a result of the exigencies wrought by the Covid pandemic.
The ACTU’s Version of Work Choices (sic)
The other area which Prime Minister Morrison can campaign on is industrial relations (IR). The ACTU has released an IR policy advocating that wages be set on an industry/occupation basis. Such a radical policy shift can only be facilitated by utilizing the corporations power of the Australian constitution.
This ACTU policy deviates from the current system in which enterprise bargaining determines wage levels underpinned by award minimums with this safety net extending to those employees not covered by Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBAs).
The Liberals are understandably wary of campaigning on IR issues given the public’s memory of the Howard government’s 2005 Work Choices (sic, No Choices) legislation. However, Prime Minister Morrison could graciously publicly pay tribute to Julia Gillard for her facilitating the passage of the 2009 Fair Work Australia legislation which thankfully repealed the No Choices IR regime.
A Liberal Party campaign in which the current Fair Work Act (2009) is endorsed would send a clear signal that the current IR system will be retained by the federal coalition. The current Fair Work Australia IR system achieves a brilliant balance between socio-financial equity and economic flexibility due to the high importance which is assigned to enterprise bargaining.
By contrast the ACTU’s current IR proposals are socially and economically dangerous because they will impose too much of a high wages burden on employers as Australia transitions to a post-Covid context. Historically, the hard left of the Australian union movement argued that the arbitral supports which the 1904 Act ushered in created an over-reliance by unions upon arbitration which undermined union effectiveness, - the so-called Howard Dependency Syndrome.
It is therefore ironic that the ACTU is now advocating a statutory enhancement of union power when the hard left of the labour movement had previously derided state sanctioned arbitration as an impediment to union effectiveness.
The ACTU should also be careful as to what they wish for with regard to utilizing the constitution’s corporations’ powers as the New Zealand experience attests.
A New Zealand Labour government passed the Employee Relations Act (
ERA, 2000) which paradoxically facilitated further de-unionisation! The ERA’s detailed statutory employment minimums had the effect of removing the need for enterprise bargaining in the private sector so that there was consequently a decreased scope for union interaction with their members.
If there is to be an Australian union resurgence let it be by dent of unions engaging with employees via enterprise bargaining. There is sufficient scope for enterprise bargaining to occur under the Fair Work Australia Act (2009) so that Australian unions can reach out to employees to effectively represent (and to recruit) them.
The statutory minimums of Fair Work are also sufficient to protect employee rights and to allow employees to be effectively represented by unions without causing an undue burden for employers so that there will not consequently be a substantial increase in unemployment. By contrast, too many employees may well lose their jobs as a result of the ACTU’s IR policies being implemented by an Albanese government.
A massive increase in unemployment will place too great a strain on a social security system which is now already too reliant upon overseas borrowing. Further massive indebtedness would also only serve to jeopardize Australia’s sound credit ratings.
This coalition federal government has already demonstrated great competence in adroitly handling this Covid pandemic. Consequently, the Morrison/Frydenberg federal government has a campaign narrative by which to appeal to the Australian people to trust this leadership team to steer Australia out of the profoundly dangerous socio-economic waters which this nation currently remains in.
[1] There were of course exceptions to this pluralist industrial relations regime such as the Australian waterfront
[2] The Australian, Guy turns down the volume and sharpens Liberals’ focus, John Ferguson, page 32, 26-27th February 2022,
[3] The CFMEU is now known as the CFMMEU because of further amalgamations with the addition of the maritime and textile unions under its expanded banner.
LEARN MORE
The recent American airstrikes around Kandahar against Taliban positions raise the prospect that the United States will provide sustained and co-ordinated airstrikes after its final withdrawal date on August 31st 2021 so as to help prevent a bloodbath in Afghanistan.
The following article was written before these US airstrikes on Kandahar in the hope that the United States would not abandon Afghanistan.
The impending Taliban takeover of Afghanistan resulting from the precipitous American withdrawal from that nation should be causing angst around the world. During their previous time in power (1996 to 2001) the Taliban gained a reputation as the cruellest regime in the second half of the twentieth century since the infamous Khmer Rouge (KR) in Cambodia between April 1975 and January 1979.
What is frustrating about the KR’s ascent to power in Cambodia in 1975 and the Taliban’s impending return to power in Afghanistan in 2021 is that this was (and will be) primarily due to an American abdication in leadership in world affairs because of the Vietnam Syndrome. This way of thinking maintains that the United States cannot successfully sustain prolonged military action abroad when it is not in America’s direct interest to do so. The public policy failures of the United States’ twenty-year commitment in Afghanistan have led to a resurgence of the Vietnam Syndrome with tragic consequences for the Afghani people who are about to be re-subjected to a Khmer Rouge style regime.
It is therefore helpful that a retrospective over-view and comparison between Cambodia and Afghanistan (with reference also to Vietnamese history) be undertaken to put the US policy into perspective and to hope that by so doing it will become apparent that American air power can still be applied to save Afghanis from the ghastly horrors of the re-imposition of Taliban rule.
Afghanistan: The Monarchists’ Republic
The first major mistake with regard to the American led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was the installation of the so-called Rome Group to power that year. The Rome group was formed from the exiled families who were loyal to Afghanistan’s deposed king, Zahir Shah, who had reigned between 1933 and 1973 and who was then resident in Rome.
It was not a mistake for the Rome Group to have initially led Afghanistan’s provisional government because the exiled Zahir Shah was then by far that nation’s most popular figure as most Afghanis were at that time desirous of a reinstated constitutional monarchy. This was because the turmoil which had followed the king’s 1973 deposition had led most Afghanis to look back upon the monarchy with nostalgia, if not rose-coloured glasses. However, on a practical note, the era of monarchy had been one during which Afghanistan was administered along decentralized tribal lines with the monarchy being the metaphorical glue which held the nation together.
Had a Loya Jirga (or tribal assembly) been called to vote in favour of a monarchical reinstatement (which could have been followed by a popular referendum to validate this decision) then the American led occupation of Afghanistan could have been considerably shorter and might have been successfully concluded. Unfortunately, and ironically, the Americans took the advice of the Rome Group – the core of which was Afghanistan’s deposed royal family- against reinstating the monarchy!
The Rome Group advised that its preferred option was to rule over a centralized republic with an executive presidency. This republican model was preferred by the Rome Group because it wanted to exercise power in order to enrich its supporters. Furthermore, the Americans blundered because the Afghan republic was (and still is) centralized in its structure so that there would be greater scope for corruption.
The establishment of a centralized republic also served to alienate Afghanistan’s multi-ethic tribal based society so that the Taliban rebounded in the countryside. Consequently, the United States led occupation found itself fighting a never-ending insurgency as Washington poured billions of dollars in aid money into Afghanistan, much of which went to a corrupt regime, whose other main skill (beside that of corruption) was to maintain the trappings of democracy as witnessed by the numerous competitive electoral processes in place in the country.
The Vietnam Parallel
The situation in Afghanistan (2001 to 2021) has been eerily similar to French ruled Vietnam between 1949 and 1954. Because of the communist victory in China in 1949, the French re-called Bao Dai the former Vietnamese emperor to power in late 1949. This was done because the Chinese communists were now in a position to supply the communist Viet Minh with arms. Consequently, the French needed to rally non-communist Vietnamese support if they were going to hold-off against Ho Chi Minh’s communist Viet Minh forces.
There was initially substantial support for Bao Dai, particularly in the north of Vietnam due to memories of the terror campaign which the Viet Minh had undertaken against nationalist Vietnamese in that part of the country between 1945 and 1946.
Although initially possessing a degree of popular support, the Bao Dai government’s constitutional/legal status was ambiguous, because the former monarch ruled over Vietnam as a ‘free state’ in ‘association’ with France. The reality of this ambiguity was continued French domination. Nevertheless, as the Viet Minh made military gains against the French, Bao Dai was able to obtain concessions from the French government including, the establishment of a Vietnamese National Army.
Bao Dai’s constitutional relationship with his citizens/subjects was also ambiguous. Technically he did not rule as an emperor but rather as chief of state and was to do so until elections to a constituent assembly were held which would resolve whether Vietnam was to be a constitutional monarchy or a republic. In the interim, Bao Dai possessed the prerogative of appointing cabinets so that he ruled more akin to an absolute monarch than to a constitutional one. The benefit of this arrangement, from Bao Dai’s perspective, was the scope (similar to contemporary Afghanistan) for the former imperial family to corruptly enrich themselves. Had Bao Dai instead called elections (which the communists would have been excluded from) to a constituent assembly they probably would have been won by the northern based Dai Viet Party. Because this party had borne the brunt of Ho Chi Minh’s brutal 1945-1946 purge its anti-communism was unabashed.
A Dai Viet majority constituent assembly probably would have voted for a constitutional monarchy therefore depriving the imperial Nguyen clan of its capacity for self-enrichment. Bao Dai stubbornly held off against such elections to a constituent assembly to avoid such an outcome.
Despite Bao Dai’s personal flaws there was still potential for him, as chief of state to continue to exploit Viet Minh military successes to gain concessions for his government and to thereby gradually advance Vietnam toward full independence. Unfortunately, the abrupt and stunning Viet Minh victory at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954 terminated this Bao Dai strategy for eventually gaining full Vietnamese independence.
The consequent collapse in French will-power to hold onto Vietnam (and Indochina) which came with their defeat at Dien Bien Phu caused the division of Vietnam at the seventeenth parallel into a communist North and a non-communist South in June 1954. Perhaps, realizing that he would not survive without the French to prop him up, Bao Dai decided against returning to Vietnam in 1954. This decision doomed the by now discredited Nguyen clan, and just over a year later in October 1955, Ngo Dinh Diem, whom Bao Dai had appointed as prime minister in 1954, established a South Vietnamese republic.
The historic Vietnamese and contemporary Afghan parallels are uncanny in that there is a tale of two respective royal families which forewent the opportunity of constitutional monarchical reinstatement so as to corruptly enrich themselves together with their cronies.
South Vietnam: The United States Applies the Wrong Military Strategy
South Vietnam’s presidential republic (The First Republic, 1955 to 1963) was authoritarian but was nowhere near as repressive as Ho Chi Minh’s regime in North Vietnam. President Diem had his strengths and his weaknesses as a ruler. Unfortunately, he over-centralized power in his Ngo clan which caused considerable unrest, so the United States backed military coup in November 1963 in which President Diem and his brother Nhu sadly lost their lives.
Whether the Kennedy administration should have backed or indeed instigated this coup against President Diem is a moot point. Nevertheless, whatever President Diem’s faults, the post-coup context led to political chaos which enveloped South Vietnam between 1964 and 1965. It was into this vacuum that Allied soldiers led by the United States, entered South Vietnam reaching over half a million troops by 1968!
Whether there would there have been such a massive deployment of troops had President Kennedy not been assassinated in November 1963 is an intriguing speculation. Being an intelligent man, President Kennedy took advice from intelligent people. He was advised by perhaps America’s most brilliant of generals, Douglas McArthur, not to fight a land war in Southeast Asia. This did not necessarily mean abandoning South Vietnam but instead looking at an alternative strategy to the one employed.
Why the Wingate Military Strategy could have been a Winner
An alternative military strategy which could have been applied by the United States in Indochina was the approach, devised by the British general, Orde Wingate. General Wingate maintained that the key to military success was not to engage on the enemy’s terms which often happens when fighting a guerrilla war.
The Wingate strategy could have been applied in the Vietnamese context in the 1960s. For example, American ships and/or aircraft carriers could have been stationed off the coast of South Vietnam. If communist forces took a centre, such as Danang, then American troops stationed on the offshore ships could have been landed in that port city to drive out the communists before then evacuating in favour of the South Vietnamese army, (the Army of the Vietnam Republic, the ARVN).
Furthermore, priority should have been given to the United States bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail because it was through this ingenious network of thousands of jungle pathways meandering through Laos and Cambodia into South Vietnam by which thousands of North Vietnamese regular soldiers, posing as southern Viet Cong guerrillas, inserted themselves into South Vietnam.
Media Misreporting
Instead, between 1965 and 1968 the United States (as well as South Korea, Thailand, and Australia) sent troops into South Vietnam to fight as a garrison force against communist guerrilla forces. Public support in the United States for the Vietnam commitment remained strong until the Tet offensive of February 1968. It was the accepted custom during the annual Tet Vietnamese New Year celebrations that military hostilities temporarily ceased. However, in 1968 this arrangement was violated by communist forces who had surreptitiously entered South Vietnamese cities to launch attacks at this time on key military and government installations, including the US embassy in Saigon.
Despite the South Vietnamese people declining to rally to support these attacks and the fact that the communists suffered massive casualties, media misreporting fostered the perception that the war situation was out of control and was beyond the point of redemption. This media misreporting on the Tet offensive resulted in President Lyndon Baines Johnson announcing in March 1968 that he would not seek a further presidential term.
President Nixon Seeks Peace with Honour
The political ramifications of this misreporting on the Tet offensive were such that the successful Republican presidential candidate, Richard Milhouse Nixon, was compelled to run on the campaign theme of ‘peace with honour’. This slogan meant that as president, Nixon would be required to withdraw American troops from South Vietnam by the end of his first presidential term but without sacrificing South Viet Nam to the communists. The achievement of this almost contradictory goal would take all of Nixon’s considerable political acumen to achieve. What is incredibly frustrating is that Nixon may well have achieved ‘peace with honour’ had it not been for post-1973 US congressional sabotage.
Nixon’s stated objective of ‘peace with honour’ did for a while abate the vitriol of the so-called ‘anti-war’ protest movement against his administration during its first six months of office in 1969. This abruptly changed when the administration did not take up the opportunity of the July 1969 Paris peace negotiations (not to be confused with the Paris peace negotiations in January 1973) to create a coalition government between the communists and non-communist interests in South Vietnam.
Had the Nixon administration foisted a coalition government on South Vietnam (which would have been tantamount to a communist takeover) between the Saigon regime and Hanoi’s satellite the National Liberation Front (NLF) and abruptly withdrawn Allied troops in 1969, then the US position in the Third World would most probably have collapsed. The international position of the United States would have been so undermined, and the Soviet Union would have been so strengthened that its empire’s life span could well have extended beyond 1991.
The fact that the communist triumph in Indochina in 1975 did not prolong the Soviet empire between 1989/1991 was due to the ramifications of Nixon’s opening to communist China in February 1972, which fundamentally shifted the balance of power in the world so that Moscow was unable to consequently maintain its then globally important strategic position.
Cambodia Enters the Vietnam War
Frustratingly, the United States endured agony as it attempted to disengage militarily from Indochina without creating a vacuum which Hanoi could fill. Therefore, the Nixon administration invaded North Vietnamese occupied eastern Cambodia in late April 1970 so as to interdict supplies into South Vietnam in order to bolster the Vietnamization policy of withdrawing Allied troops so that the ARVN could effectively fill the vacuum.
Anti-war critics/historians have argued that this American led ‘invasion’ of Cambodia brought the ravage of war to this country. The war actually came to this Southeast Asian nation when the Lon Nol government (which had constitutionally deposed Cambodia’s avowedly neutralist chief of state, Prince Sihanouk in March 1970) decided to occupy eastern Cambodian territory following the withdrawal of American/South Vietnamese forces in May 1970.
Notionally, it was not unreasonable for a sovereign nation to re-occupy its own territory. However, it could be argued that this action was foolhardy because it entailed the much weaker Cambodian army taking on the might of the North Vietnamese army between May 1970 and March 1972. During this time period the North Vietnamese army greatly weakened Cambodia’s armed forces thereby paving the way for the Peking backed communist KR guerrillas to be on the brink of capturing the Cambodian capital Phnom Penn in January 1973. This would have occurred had the Nixon administration not flown in emergency supplies and attacked the KR positions from the air.
Richard Nixon Almost Saves Cambodia
Utilizing its increased leverage with the Cambodian regime, the Nixon administration compelled President Lon Nol to banish his brother and Eminence Gris, General Lon Non into temporary exile and to form a new cabinet in May 1973 headed by In Tam (who had run against Lon Nol in the discredited June 1972 presidential election). Again, as a result of an American initiative, legislative and executive power was vested in a newly formed High Political Council. This executive was composed of one -time domestic opponents of President Lon Nol but who had also previously helped instigate Prince Sihanouk’s deposition in March 1970.
Between April and June 1973, the United States and Peking entered into negotiations concerning a political settlement in Cambodia under which Lon Nol would be eased out and Prince Sihanouk reinstated as chief of state with the prince sharing power with the High Political Council. Had such, an arrangement been arrived at then Peking would have cut off aid to the KR by giving its support to a restored Prince Sihanouk thereby denying those genocidal guerrillas access to power.
US Congressional Sabotage leads to The Cambodian Genocide
Alas, at the time American-Sino negotiations were taking place in May and June of 1973, ‘anti-war’ US legislators led by Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mike Mansfield, were moving to cut off funding for the bombing of KR military positions. In June 1973 Senator Mansfield went so far as to threaten to defund the American government unless the bombing was stopped in Cambodia. Consequently, President Nixon was compelled in June 1973 to sign a bill which terminated the bombing of KR positions after August 15th 1973.
This termination of the bombing not only thwarted the reaching of an American-Sino political settlement for Cambodia but doomed that nation to nearly four years (1975 to 1979) of genocidal hell under the KR. If any non-Cambodian deserves the opprobrium for the Cambodian Holocaust in which nearly half the population of this tragic nation perished due to killing and mass starvation it is Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana[1]!
The situation in contemporary Afghanistan is now distressingly similar to Cambodia because American air power is not being applied to save this nation from an impending holocaust. It should also be pointed out at this juncture, for those who argue that foreign intervention in Afghanistan is foredoomed to failure, that the Soviets were not defeated militarily in their earlier foray into that nation.
Although the Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in early 1989, they enabled the communist regime of Mohammad Najibullah to hold onto that nation’s cities by continued air support in which supplies were transported to government held urban areas. It was only with the demise of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 that external aid to the Najibullah government came to an end which resulted in the subsequent fall of that regime in February 1992. Ironically, the communist Kabul regime, which owed its existence to Moscow, had briefly outlived its patron.
How Afghanistan can still be Saved
The current situation in Afghanistan is similar to when the Soviet troops were withdrawn in early 1989. Continued air support enabled the incumbent government to hold on. Similarly, if the United States provides air support to protect the regime of President Ashraf Ghani, then his government will also stand a strong chance of survival.
The Biden administration can continue to maintain air bases in Afghanistan so that Taliban positions can be bombed so as to keep those murderous guerrillas at bay. Instead of scaling back its embassy in Kabul the United States should have an activist mission in Afghanistan (similar to the embassy in Phnom Penn between March 1974 and April 1975 under Ambassador John Gunther Dean) in order to engineer needed internal reform so that the Afghan government can initiate a strategy to retake the countryside.
Because the golden opportunity for a reinstated Afghan constitutional monarchy is unfortunately gone, Afghanistan is an executive presidential republic. A benefit of such a system of governance is that talented political outsiders can be brought into government. There is a critical mass of understandably frightened but brilliant Afghans who could be brought into government service at the behest of the Biden administration.
The United States by providing air cover to Afghanistan’s cities would not only have the leverage (as the Nixon administration did in Cambodia in 1973 with the Lon Nol regime) to inject Afghanistan’s government with needed talent but also, more importantly, to prevent a Taliban takeover.
A United States State Department official, Kenneth Quinn, attempted to warn the world in 1974 of how disastrous a KR victory would be in Cambodia. The world does not need another Kenneth Quinn to warn of the evil consequences for Afghanistan should the Taliban return to power now. Furthermore, the Taliban will not be content just with ruling Afghanistan. They will also provide Jihadists with a base to try and bring down pro-American regimes such as Saudi Arabia. The United States should appreciate that its position in the Third World will also be fatally undercut vis a vis Beijing if America cuts and runs from Afghanistan. Already the People’s Republic of China is sounding out the Afghanistan government with offers of military assistance in its battle with the Taliban.
President Biden may think that he will become a folk hero by abandoning the Afghan people to the Taliban and therefore ‘ending the war in Afghanistan’ but America’s problems around the world will just get worse as a result of the reasons which have been cited in this article.
The United States does not have to perpetually station troops in Afghanistan. Rather, America can utilise air support (as the Soviets did between 1989 and 1991). This would not only render an invaluable service to the people of Afghanistan but would also prevent President Biden from becoming to that nation what Senator Mike Mansfield became to Cambodia!
[1] American Professor Noam Chomsky in a disturbing monologue in the documentary Manufacturing Consent ludicrously revised down the number of Cambodians who were killed by the KR regime and erroneously claimed that more Cambodians were killed by the American bombing of Cambodia.
LEARN MORE