The Coalition's decision this week to resettle an additional 12,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees was welcome, if belated, confirming once again this country's long and honourable record of generosity toward people fleeing conflict. However, the announcement that the women, children and families of "persecuted minorities" would be given priority was criticised in many circles as discriminatory and mean-spirited. Persecution, ill-treatment and general inhospitality reaches across ethnic and religious divides in the Middle East (with the oppressed in one country frequently doing the oppressing in another) so the criticism was not invalid. Nevertheless, there was an element of unnecessary nit-picking, particularly given the likelihood there will be further refugee intakes in future.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
What also jarred was that on the same day, Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed that Australian air strikes against Islamic State targets were being extended from Iraq into Syria. The new theatre of operations, said Mr Abbott, marked the "next phase of Australia's contribution to the international coalition effort to disrupt, degrade and ultimately defeat" IS. The extension had been widely expected, but Mr Abbott was sufficiently moved by this further projection of military power to warn Australian jihadists fighting for IS in Syria that they "may well feel the force of our arms".
Did he mean he might emulate British Prime Minister David Cameron, who sanctioned the use of a drone to kill a British citizen turned jihadist fighter in Syria this month? Mr Abbott's apparently boundless support for the international coalition's mission means it probably can't be ruled out. The RAAF is certainly keen to augment its fleet with self-piloted killer drones. Whether the government has yet considered the moral and legal implications of assassinating Australians fighting for foreign powers (presumably after they have been stripped of their citizenship) is not clear. The apparent lack of thought given to just what purpose is being served by extending the RAAF mission suggests not.
If it's to show solidarity for Australia's principal military ally, then there is some semblance of meaning in authorising Hornet sorties over Syria. But the mission will serve no useful military purpose, and certainly not help degrade or defeat IS. A year of reasonably intensive US airstrikes has accomplished very little in Syria, and unless the coalition commits to sending in troops (an unimaginable prospect), more territory will fall to IS. Coming to some accommodation with President Bashar al-Assad and giving his army the means to defeat IS would be a better military strategy. But Russia and Iranian support for the regime, regional rivalries and distaste for his methods make this an equally unlikely scenario.
Whether the West bears some responsibility for this mess based on France and Britain's post-World War I shenanigans in the Middle East is debatable – as is the belief that Assad might just have been persuaded to share power in 2011 had the US and Europe tried harder. But if IS is considered the greater threat to the West, then a settlement or accommodation with Assad and his backers is required – even if negotiators have to hold their noses in the process.
