|
 Sydney, Australia, 24th February 2010 - Kevin Rudd yesterday revealed the Australian Government's latest White Paper on Counter-Terrorism. In expressing the findings of the paper Mr. Rudd stated that the threat of terrorism was not diminishing, it had in fact become a permanent feature of Australia's security environment, with an increased threat from people born or raised in Australia.
Uthman Badar, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, says in this regard,
"It has taken the Government almost fifteen months to reach conclusions one can reach in fifteen minutes; conclusions that are ostensibly irrational, politicised and superficial. The White Paper continues the Government trend of focusing on the symptoms of terrorism, whilst turning a blind eye to its causes. This shows us once again that the Government values the perceived benefit accrued from its exploitative foreign policy and that of its allies, higher than it values the life and security of its citizens. Otherwise it would be serious about national security and deal with the root-causes of terrorism."
"This is a classic case of blame-shifting. Instead of accepting the repercussions of its imperial adventures in the Muslim world, the Government seeks to shift blame unto the Muslims whereby it both absolves itself and is able to continue the exploitation. This is a dangerous and untenable game."
"The acknowledgment of an increase in the threat of terrorism is equally an acknowledgment, in any rational assessment, that the so-called 'war on terror' has failed. The claim that 'successes' in Iraq and Afghanistan have been offset are nothing but spin. There have been no successes. The invasions have miserably failed."
"The release of this paper has also been conveniently timed to follow last week's unjust sentencing of five Sydney Muslims, just as last year's anti-terror amendments were timed to precede heavy-handed and much-dramaticised anti-terror raids. The obvious idea is to present the alleged problem in tandem with proposed solution so as to show i) That terrorism is a major issue in Australia, and ii) the Government is doing something about it. The aware observer of course is not fooled by this shameful politicisation of so crucial a matter as national security."
"We firmly re-iterate once more that for an effective treatment of the terror issue, the state-terrorism of Western governments in the Muslim world must cease, for it is the primary root cause. If this does not happen, we will continue to witness an increasing threat followed by more white papers and nonsensical government policy followed only by a higher threat. A lose-lose situation for everyone."
Ends. For further information, questions or comments, please contact Uthman Badar, Media Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, on
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
or 0438 000 465. Alternatively, further information is available on our website: www.hizb-australia.org.
Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia
24th February 2010
|
Thank-you for publishing my comments.
1. I chose the invasion of Kuwait and 9/11 as starting points, because this is when major Australian involvement in the Middle East began in recent times. “Continuations of a long legacy…” What event involving Australia do you have in mind?
2. It is interesting that you would say that the UN is a tool of the Western Powers. If you look at the record of the UNHRC, you would see that the UN is also a tool of the global south and the OIC. I accept that countries routinely ignore UN approval as it suits them, but they clearly prefer the UN stamp of approval if possible. Is there another manner that sovereign nations can discuss (let alone agree) on whether international action is legitimate or not?
3. In what way are the anti-terror laws unjust? They have been justly debated and proclaimed by parliament, confirmed in the Senate, and not struck down by the Supreme Court. Australia has a legitimate and proven security problem, one that we have little experience in dealing with (unlike say the British with the IRA). If the present laws go too far, then we the people will make sure that future Federal Parliaments rectify the situation. The Haneef case is unfortunate, but the resolution is being worked through, and Haneef himself has been quoted as saying he holds no ill-feeling, and would consider returning to live here.
4. You did not answer my question about appropriate sentences for guilty terrorists. Regardless of broadness of the law, surely you would agree that their behaviour and plans were counter-productive to harmonious relations between communities in Australia? If not long jail terms, what should their sentence have been?
Thanks for the invitation to discuss these matters with you in more detail. I do not live in Sydney, but if you are ever visiting Melbourne, I would be happy to meet for a discussion.
Thanks for your comments.
We beg to differ on your assessment. You are making numerous assumptions without substantiating them. These include the assumption that:
1. Western interference in the Muslim World began with Iraq and Afghanisation - it didn't, these are mere continuations of a long legacy.
2. Actions approved by the UN are somehow legitimate by default - they are not, the UN is a means used by Western powers to facilitate their foreign policies, and when this does not occur, it suddenly becomes 'irrelevant'.
3. The arrests and convictions in Australia have been fair and just - they have not, as they have only been possible under the new unjust anti-terror laws, not to mention the sensationalism of the media, the heavy-handedness and untoward conduct of ASIO and the AFP, or the politicisation of the entire terror issue by the Government, both Liberal and Labour. All of these came together vividly in the Dr. Haneef case not long ago, but have been effective in all the other cases to varying degrees.
4. The convicted Muslims in the current case were infact guilty of what the court found them to be guilty off - in fact they were only guilty under the anti-terror laws, which as I have said are unjustly broad.
There are obviously many details behind each of these points, and this is perhaps not the best forum to discuss them, but I trust the brief mention made shows that the matter is not as simple as it may at first seem.
Happy to discuss further in person at any of our regular public events.
Regards.
This is bananas.
Australia's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan happened *after* the root causes - the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the Taliban harboring of Al Qaida following 9/11 bombings.
To call Australia's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'state-terrorism' and 'imperial adventures', when both are approved by the United Nations, is to show surprising ignorance of the global situation.
The fact that we have not had successful terrorist activity in Australia, and there have been successful arrests and convictions, is proof that the war on terror both here and overseas, is working in Australia's national interest.
And finally, to call the sentencing of the five Sydney Muslims 'unjust'... words fail me. Their behaviour is not defensible by any sensible person. To defend them is to cause doubt and suspicion in the minds of your fellow Australians. What, in your view, is a reasonable sentence for a guilty terrorist? Perhaps we should cut their hands off or stone them instead?