http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20073658-7583,00.html
Editorial: Doing it right in Afghanistan August 10, 2006 Sending troops is a difficult but necessary commitment AUSTRALIAN troops are once again on the move. In parliament yesterday, John Howard announced that 390 Australian Defence Force soldiers, including an infantry company of 120, would join a Dutch reconstruction team in Afghanistan's Oruzgan province, replacing a 200-member special forces taskforce due to return home next month. In deploying troops to Afghanistan, the Prime Minister is sending a powerful message that even as Australia pursues commitments elsewhere in the world, it is not about to leave unfinished business to fester in the war on terror. As a victim of Soviet domination followed by Taliban depravity, Afghanistan deserves all the help it can get. And if Kevin Rudd is correct that there are potentially "tens of thousands of al-Qa'ida" still active there, all the better for them to be dealt with thousands of kilometres from our shores by trained professionals. The deployment is as vital as it is dangerous. The violent and chaotic Afghanistan that was left after Soviet invaders withdrew in 1989 became the ultimate failed state. What resulted was a disorganised shambles that played host to terrorists and a brutal Islamic theocracy under the Taliban. Afghanistan's chief exports became opium, terrorism and refugees. Since the ouster of the Taliban, northern Afghanistan has been relatively stable. Five million children have returned to school, three million refugees have returned home and a small but growing economic base has developed. Add to this a popularly elected President and parliament and publicly debated constitution and it looks like a nation-building success story. Unfortunately things haven't gone so well in the south after neglect by the international community which failed to provide security for the region. This has been exacerbated by Pakistan's two-faced ability to give cover to terrorists operating across its border with Afghanistan while simultaneously portraying itself as an ally of the West in the war on terror. This has led to a plethora of heavily armed non-state actors operating with impunity within the country's borders. As the experience of Hezbollah's occupation of southern Lebanon shows, the loss of sovereignty to militias and criminals is profoundly dangerous and destabilising. Though it will stretch an already burdened military, this is a worthwhile mission. Afghanistan is just one part of a much broader fight between democracy and theocratic fascism that began five years ago with the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Centre. It is especially ironic that opponents of the deployment such as Bob Brown, whose normal refrain is that Australia shirks international agreements and obligations, have in this case suggested we stay home and let the rest of the world sort it out. But both as part of the coalition that helped unseat the Taliban and as a nation that has been in al-Qai'da's crosshairs since long before 9/11, Australia has a duty and interest in setting things right in Afghanistan. Dangerous waters Australian sovereignty is damaged by the migration bill NOTHING has changed since John Howard's ill-judged and dangerous migration amendment bill was first introduced into the federal parliament in May to suggest it now deserves support. Even in its present form, mildly watered-down after a backbench revolt, the bill represents the worst kind of policy-making, trading Australian sovereignty to appease Jakarta's anger over our granting protection to 42 Papuan asylum-seekers in March. Instead of using diplomacy to assert Australian sovereignty when Jakarta threw a tantrum over the decision, the Prime Minister came up with a bill to ensure anyone arriving illegally on Australian shores by boat is taken offshore for assessment. In the process, he handed Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono the right to decide who comes to this country and under what circumstances. The Australian backed Mr Howard in 2001 over his controversial Pacific solution, which succeeded in stopping people smugglers exploiting the tide of human misery produced by upheaval in the Middle East. But this newspaper cannot support a measure that undermines Australian sovereignty. Arguing against the bill yesterday, Labor immigration spokesman Tony Burke observed that almost five years has passed since more than 300 desperate men, women and children drowned in a failed attempt by criminals to smuggle them into Australia on board the unseaworthy Siev-X. In stark contrast, the modest boatload of 43 Papuans who landed on Cape York in January were possibly the first to do so in the four decades since Indonesia imposed its administration in the Papuan capital, Jayapura. The spectre raised earlier this year of a flotilla of vessels carrying asylum-seekers from the troubled Indonesian province to northern Australia has not eventuated in the hiatus while the bill is debated, and is not likely to. In June, Mr Howard attempted to defend his legislation on the basis of Jakarta's continuing role in helping to prevent people-smuggling. But 43 people climbing into their own canoe to flee persecution does not meet any sensible definition of people-smuggling. At least four Liberal backbenchers have indicated they will cross the floor to vote against the legislation today, and Mr Howard faces the possibility of the bill failing in the Senate. It should. Jakarta's silence following the granting of a protection visa to the last of the 43 Papuan asylum-seekers, David Wainggai, 10 days ago suggests the whole affair was a storm in a tea cup and underlines Mr Howard's poor judgment in the scale of his response. Our existing arrangements are entirely capable of weighing the claims of Papuan asylum-seekers at the same time as supporting legitimate Indonesian territorial sovereignty. Rather than attempting to intimidate Australia, Jakarta would do better to focus on improving conditions for the Papuans in its eastern-most province. Beirut blinks at last Israel's campaign has started to pay the right dividends THE Lebanese Government's offer to finally send troops to secure southern Lebanon against Hezbollah terrorists is a step in the right direction, albeit 24 years too late. It vindicates Israel's strategy of taking the fight to the heart of Lebanon, effectively holding the state responsible for the rebel terror group, which has operated freely within its borders. If Lebanon were able to genuinely assert control over its territory and force Hezbollah to stop its cross-border raids and missile attacks against Israel, a key foundation of the long-festering Middle East conundrum would be removed. But Israel is right to be cautious of the Lebanese offer. It has good reason to be suspicious that the offer of 15,000 soldiers may be a cynical ploy to secure an Israeli retreat and buy breathing space for Hezbollah to rearm. In the propaganda war that has accompanied the bombing, there is no doubt that Israel, in its quest for long-term stability, has driven the sympathies of many more Lebanese citizens into the arms of Hezbollah. The death toll on both sides from the month-long war has been tragic. But responsibility must be borne by Hezbollah, and its Syrian and Iranian masters, who provoked Israel to act. And by a generation of Lebanese leaders who have refused to stand up for the best interests of their citizens. Israel's belated heavy military approach has finally forced the Lebanese Government to admit the obvious - that as a sovereign nation, it must refuse safe harbour to terrorists who wage a war against its neighbour. Having come this far, Israel is right to continue planning a ground offensive to secure strategic positions from which Hezbollah has showered it with missiles and to await the outcome of a peace deal being thrashed out by France and the US. French negotiators are confident a deal can be done for consideration by the UN this week. The sticking point has been when, not if, Israel withdraws from Lebanese lands. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert Ehud has made it clear his country has no intention of again occupying Lebanon, having withdrawn in 2000 after 18 years of war and occupation. It is, however, determined to remove the threat of Hezbollah. The latest offer from Lebanon may not be the circuit-breaker to the immediate conflict but it is a pledge that must be delivered on once the shooting has stopped and international troops are in place to enforce a peace. The long-term solution has always been for the elected government of Lebanon to refuse to harbour the terrorists of Hezbollah, funded by Syria and Iran, to continue their campaign of violence against Israel. Israel's war strategy has been to show there is more pain for Lebanon in not acting than in fronting up to the terrorists in their midst. And they have been proved correct. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
