Time to get serious about proper sanctions on Israel

You hear there's food. A truck might be coming. Maybe. So you walk – miles sometimes. You bring your ID, your kids, anything you can carry. You wait in the sun, in the dust, surrounded by hundreds just like you, hoping this isn't one of the days the Israeli army decides to shoot. On Tuesday, they did, leaving 59 people dead and more than 200 wounded ('At least 59 Palestinians killed waiting for aid', June 19). They came for flour and left in body bags. This isn't the first time. Three hundred and ninety-seven people have been killed trying to reach aid trucks in the past month. And it won't be the last — unless world leaders, Anthony Albanese included, decide otherwise. That means cutting diplomatic ties. Imposing real sanctions. Halting arms sales. Anything less is complicity. Fernanda Trecenti, Fitzroy (Vic)
Thomas Friedman made a lot of good points in his article, but your correspondent Alexander Hilson (Letters, June 19) somewhat misrepresented what Friedman was saying about Palestinian self-determination. He didn't say that they would need the approval of the United States, only that any future government of theirs would need to fulfil the requirements of statehood. He went on to describe what this might entail. The real point is that thus far, all attempts at resolving the conflict have failed because the Palestinian leadership does not come close to meeting these requirements and is not fit to govern any future Palestinian state. Ridding them of Hamas has to be the first step before any recognition of Palestine. Steve Davidson, Turramurra
Israel attacks Iran and suddenly Israel striking starving Palestinians queueing for food doesn't make it onto the front page. Israel's genocide in Gaza should not be buried at the back of the newspaper. Genevieve Milton, Dulwich
Democracy no ruler
Correspondent Michael Berger says that, for the first time in 20 years, Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations (Letters, June 18). Evidently, this is enough reason for Israel to assassinate whoever it wants and bomb Iran. Of course, Israel itself is not in breach of non-proliferation obligations – it does not have any because it refuses to be part of the process. It does what it wants on the nuclear field with no supervision. When we compare the two states, Iran and Israel, Israel is much less compliant on nuclear non-proliferation. But Israel is democratic, isn't it? One of the good guys. Ask the Arabs of the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights when they had a vote for the government of Israel. Israel is democratic in the same way as South Africa was democratic during apartheid – only some citizens get to vote. We are sometimes told that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is probably true that it is the closest to a democracy, as the free and fair election of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was almost immediately overturned by the USA, supported by the local military. The Muslim Brotherhood is now declared a terrorist organisation. As far as many Arabs are concerned, the idea of democracy is meaningless as they will never be permitted to win by the USA and its local agents. Democracy cannot be used as a measure of legitimacy in the Middle East. Reg Lawler, Dagun (Qld)
Alan Russell presents, I fear, an overly optimistic view of the restraints on Donald Trump over the Israel-Iran conflict (Letters, June 19). It is true that only Congress has the power to declare war, as it did in December 1941 against Japan. However, America carried on a decade-long war in Vietnam with no declaration of war. President Johnson was able to conduct the conflict there on the basis of a congressional resolution, 'The Tonkin Resolution'. Don't forget Trump's action against Syria in April 2017, when he ordered Tomahawk missile strikes on the Assad regime. No congressional declaration of war there either. Ken Webb, Epping
With a foreboding sense of deja vu, I am reminded of President George W. Bush rushing into Iraq looking for 'weapons of mass destruction' (' Trump camp split over Iran ', June 19). Between the start of the war in 2003 and its end in 2011, the US had 4500 dead and 32,000 injured. They never did find the weapons. Gavin Williamson, Narrabeen
Albo dodged a bullet
I fail to see why our prime minister is so desperate to gain a brief audience with the world's most unreliable and egotistical leader – a laughing stock among other world leaders – even to trying to catch up with him on the sidelines of the Nato summit (' Albanese races to lock in new date with Trump ', June 19). Five minutes after the encounter, Donald Trump would have forgotten Albanese's name, let alone the contents of the conversation (Remember Joe Biden's reference to 'that fellow from Down Under'?) That brief but intense meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky in St Peter's Basilica in Rome failed to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. Indeed, Putin plays Trump like a trout. The tragic reality is that the US is no longer our great and powerful friend and is an entirely different nation from the one I once loved and lived in. Paul Keating is right to say that America's AUKUS review could save Australia from itself, so let's get on with it. Bernard Moylan, Bronte
Shaun Carney, Australians don't understand why Australian leaders continue to chase after their American counterparts like lost puppies (' PM can keep playing that dead bat ', June 19). Scott Morrison's sycophantic behaviour to Trump was sickening and as an aside can be blamed, in no small part, on the Coalition's downfall. If Australia stops its wanton fealty to the US, at some point the US will eventually come running for favours. At that time, Australia should have developed alternate alliances and therefore either have bigger bargaining chips, or ultimately ask the US to speak to the hand. Ted Bush, North Epping
Shaun Carney's column strikes a chord, as does Nick Bonyhady's concurrent article (' Paul Keating accuses Marles of 'careless betrayal ' over China', June 19). Gambling as a national trait is normally confined to enjoyable recreational activities, like the next race, footy match, etc. Gambling on igniting a potential world war is the 'ultimate crapshoot', one we'll happily leave to our American mates. Being pragmatic as well as maintaining our sovereignty are both part of our national DNA. Equally, kowtowing to or being bullied by any other nation doesn't sit well. Being dragged into wars, most recently by our previous US 'cousins', has concentrated our collective memory. Sitting this one out and ensuring we don't burn the bridges, economically and diplomatically, that Labor has worked hard to rebuild, is a wise move. Cleveland Rose, Dee Why
Any politician or commentator perturbed by the snubbing of Anthony Albanese by Donald Trump should instead be thankful he was. Trump is highly unpredictable and with all the noise around the Israel, Gaza and the Iran conflicts, it was hardly surprising. Although we have always imagined ourselves as a special friend of the US, that has all changed with the America First mentality of the Trump administration. What Albanese doesn't need is the public humiliation of a Trump sit-down, highly likely when seeking tariff relief. Thus, I contend that the non-meeting was a good result at this juncture, with the PM able to maintain his dignity and self-respect. Max Redmayne, Drummoyne
Trump claims to be the greatest dealmaker and has many times declared himself 'very smart'. Yet the world watches as a real master manipulator outwits and outplays him like a pro and wedges the US into a dreadful corner. They're damned if they help Benjamin Netanyahu with a war he can't finish on his own, and damned if they don't. Trump, concerned only with the optics as he struts self-importantly out of a G7 meeting that would not have been focused enough on him, is clueless about the disaster that he has been sucked into by people infinitely smarter than him. He is everyone's fool. Graeme Smith, Daceyville
In less than six months the Trump regime is beginning to turn on itself. The defence secretary is out of his depth. The trade war has been lost. America's allies want a new partnership without the US. Putin and Xi are smiling. Even our own prime minister is distancing himself from the Orange One. Now the commentators who enabled Trump's rise are enraged. When the burgers and sleepless nights finally kill him, what are the chances JD Vance will be any better? It's been just six months – there are still 42 to go. David Neilson, Araluen (NT)
Conroy is too late
Defence Minister Pat Conroy claims Mick Ryan doesn't understand Australia's 'defence initiatives' (Letters, June 19). Mick is not on his Pat Malone there. With Albo chasing Trump across the globe, begging for a meeting to grovel at his feet, what on earth are these defence initiatives? Just the one. Continuing to go all in with America. With the now reckless US no longer honouring agreements or sharing our values and goals, we are at best undefended and at worst strapped to a suicide bomb. Without a hint of irony, Conroy's response is weeks late. Those subs will be terminally late. AUKUS is nothing more than a $368 billion donation to the US military industrial complex. Those Israeli missiles don't pay for themselves. Paul Davies, Crows Nest
Is $100m enough?
Now that Optus will submit to a $100 million fine for unconscionable conduct, I have been reflecting on how our consumer protections have evolved (' Optus to pay $100 million fine over sales to vulnerable customers ', June 19). The laws are nowhere near perfect but are so much better now then in the 1970s, when freedom of contract reigned supreme and corporations ran riot over their consumer victims. Yes, it is hard to believe, but in those dark times, corporations were able to hide behind the notion that the parties had agreed to a contract, regardless of whether the consumer understood the terms. The only question now: is a $100 million fine enough? Michael Blissenden, Dural
Pay to see results
At a family get-together last weekend, I casually asked my granddaughter how she fared in recent uni exams (' Wake-up call as Australian universities slip in world rankings ', June 19). She said she didn't know. I assumed the results hadn't been released, but I was gobsmacked when I asked when she would know. Students have to pay a fee to receive their results. Once again, silly me assumed the fee was for some type of formal certificate, but no, they won't release your raw results until you pay the fee. This is a recognised top-level university. I get user-pays, lack of funding etc, but this is an absolute disgrace. Jason Clare, Federal Minister for Education, are you reading this? Albo, this is your country, slipping in the rankings. Brian Jones, Leura
Wasted years
It is not an apocryphal 'obsession with renewables' which will prove 'the greatest economic folly in the history of our nation' (Letters, June 19), but the decades Australia has wasted pandering to the wilful ignorance of right-wing ideologues, fossil fuel-funded fabulists and Murdoch minions ignoring the immutable laws of physics that rising CO2 emissions drive increasingly extreme weather events – then pretending that the observable reality isn't happening. New data from NASA has confirmed that these events will get more intense and costly until humanity accepts that the transition to renewables isn't optional (we either do it voluntarily or have it forced upon us by nature), so your correspondent Ian Morison's address is apt, as you can't see the trees from the Forrest unless you're prepared to ACT on observable reality outside it. Chris Roylance, Paddington (Qld)
Profit from misery
It is no surprise that the politicisation of refugees and the willingness of successive governments to outsource our responsibilities to countries willing to take our money has resulted in this level of corruption (' AFP probes firm's insured luxury ', June 19). While the alleged corrupt activities of Canstruct individuals is appalling, it is just one of many allegations of misappropriation of taxpayer dollars by various companies since the Rudd government announcement that no refugees coming to Australia by boat would ever settle in Australia. The only answer to this ongoing issue is to reinstitute onshore processing. It is more humane, more economical, and would go some way to restoring our international reputation on human rights. Judith Reynolds, Leura
An entire article on the 'corruption-prone, dysfunctional and wasteful management of offshore processing' and not one mention of the name of the responsible government minister at the time of the contracts, and a suggestion that it was a political problem for the Albanese government, despite them being in opposition during that period. Very strange. Graeme Finn, Campsie
In the interests of clarity, it was Peter Dutton, not the current government, who presided over the billions of dollars in government contracts to companies like LNP donor Canstruct and Paladin, ignoring warnings about them for years. Dutton was home affairs minister from 2017 to 2021. It was his department under former secretary Mike Pezzullo (whom Albanese sacked) that initiated the contentious Nauru offshore processing contracts. Alison Stewart, Riverview
How perverse that the CEO of the company responsible for running the detention centre in Nauru, full of the most desperate individuals, was able to buy himself a $600,000 car. That our tax monies were used and are still being used to run this cruel and questionable policy that allowed the company concerned to make super profits is abhorrent. Alan Morris, Eastlakes
Goldie-clocks
The specialists driving expensive cars mentioned by your correspondent obviously didn't get the memo (Letters, June 19). A specialist with whom I once worked on the days he had a clinic would remove his Rolex watch before the first patient arrived and substitute it for a $20 Kmart variety. Elizabeth Maher, Gordon
Dead last
I have lost access to the crosswords without a premium subscription. Because I can't keep my mind active, I'm likely to be in the obituaries, if they are ever published again (Letters, June 19). Jenny Greenwood, Hunters Hill

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Sky News AU

an hour ago

• Sky News AU

Iran says it is 'ready to consider diplomacy' only when 'aggression is stopped' by Israel as conflict enters second week

Iran has declared its nuclear programme has "always been peaceful" and urged Israel to stop the "aggression" before Tehran would consider diplomacy talks. The nations on Friday continued to launch missiles at one another on day eight of the conflict, targeting missile production sites in Iran and industrial facilities in Israel. Iran also hit the southern Israeli city of Beersheba for the second day in a row, causing serious damage to homes, businesses and leaving at least seven people injured. While Israel hit dozens of military targets, some it claimed were involved in nuclear weapons development in Tehran, and surface-to-air missile batteries in Iran's south. President Donald Trump has given a two-week timeline in which he will decide whether the United States military will intervene to end the conflict. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters in Switzerland that officials are "ready to consider diplomacy" but demanded Israel "stop the aggression". 'Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful and has always been under the IAEA safeguards and monitoring. Hence, armed attacks against safeguarded nuclear facilities by a regime which is not a party to any WMD (weapons of mass destruction) treaties is a serious crime and violation of international law," he said on Friday. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy once again – once the aggression is stopped and the aggressor is held accountable for the crimes committed. 'In this regard, I made it crystal clear that Iran's defence capabilities are not negotiable.' In response, Israel's envoy to the United Nations, Danny Danon, told the UN Security Council his country would not stop its attacks "until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled". While the head of the UN nuclear watchdog also warned against attacks on nuclear facilities and called for restraint, warning it "could result in radioactive releases with great consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the state attacked". It is feared the resistance from both sides will prolong the conflict. Speaking to media, President Trump said US officials have been talking to Iran, doubling down that Tehran was weeks or months from having a nuclear weapon. The leader of the free world also flagged it is "very hard" to tell Israel's military to stop its operation given it is "winning" but he remains open to discussions. 'It's very hard to stop, when you look at it — Israel's doing well in terms of war. I think you would say that Iran is doing less well, it's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop," he said in New Jersey ahead of a fundraiser at his golf course. President Trump also dismissed Europe's attempts at diplomacy with Iran. 'They didn't help. Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help on this one," the US commander-in-chief said. Asked about a ceasefire in the conflict, the President said he "might" support it.

The Advertiser

an hour ago

• The Advertiser

One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved, but...

Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours. Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours. Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours. Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours.

The Advertiser

an hour ago

• The Advertiser

Friends united by concern for family in Iran and Israel

Conflict in the Middle East is thousands of kilometres away from the desks of Saina Salemi and her colleague Oscar, but the pair constantly discuss blasts and evacuation warnings. Ms Salemi hasn't spoken to her family in Iran for more than three days due to a nation-wide internet blackout, while Oscar - who asked that his surname not be used - has no idea when he'll next see his parents who are trapped in Israel. "My helplessness would have been made worse had someone like Oscar not been here. There's only so many people in your life that can truly understand a situation like this," Ms Salemi told AAP. Israel and Iran have been trading strikes since the Israeli military began its attack a week ago in a bid to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, but geopolitical tensions are not dividing the two friends from Melbourne. "Despite what these countries are putting each other through, the fact that it hasn't got between us even for a millisecond, I feel very touched," Oscar said. The pair are consumed by worry for their families and appalled by the scale of human suffering in countries they remember fondly from holidays. "I said to Ocar, I feel like I'm going crazy, because everybody around me is moving so normally and is going about their day-to-day lives, and I'm just watching a 24/7 live blog all the time," Ms Salemi said. "The Iranian diaspora, we are really tired of people being used as collateral damage." She's angry her family in Tehran have no bomb shelter to go to and worried about what could happen to her elderly grandparents after Donald Trump warned some 10 million people in Iran's capital to evacuate. The president said he will make a decision about whether the US joins the conflict within two weeks, demanding Iran's unconditional surrender. However, Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the conflict. "I texted my cousin last night telling him I loved him and there's a great numbness that comes with feeling like you're saying 'I love you' to someone for the last time," Ms Salemi said. "I'm yet to hear back from that text message." More than 2000 Australians have registered for assistance to leave Iran and more than 1200 have registered to leave Israel, with Australian military personnel and aircraft being deployed to help. Oscar's parents have barely left their bomb shelter since the conflict flared and he doesn't know how they'll come home, after receiving a warning they may not be safe at Jordan's land border crossing. "I really feel for my parents, I feel for everyone in Tehran, in Gaza, in Tel Aviv," Oscar said. "None of them deserve it, it's exhausting." He's grateful to have grown up in Australia where he and Ms Salemi can lean on each other for support. "I do think that there's something really special about this country where you can have this kind of friendship," he said. "I hope most Australians don't have to understand what it's like having family in these kinds of circumstances." Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 639 people and wounded more than 1300 others, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Israel says Iran's retaliatory strikes killed at least 24 people and wounded hundreds. Conflict in the Middle East is thousands of kilometres away from the desks of Saina Salemi and her colleague Oscar, but the pair constantly discuss blasts and evacuation warnings. Ms Salemi hasn't spoken to her family in Iran for more than three days due to a nation-wide internet blackout, while Oscar - who asked that his surname not be used - has no idea when he'll next see his parents who are trapped in Israel. "My helplessness would have been made worse had someone like Oscar not been here. There's only so many people in your life that can truly understand a situation like this," Ms Salemi told AAP. Israel and Iran have been trading strikes since the Israeli military began its attack a week ago in a bid to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, but geopolitical tensions are not dividing the two friends from Melbourne. "Despite what these countries are putting each other through, the fact that it hasn't got between us even for a millisecond, I feel very touched," Oscar said. The pair are consumed by worry for their families and appalled by the scale of human suffering in countries they remember fondly from holidays. "I said to Ocar, I feel like I'm going crazy, because everybody around me is moving so normally and is going about their day-to-day lives, and I'm just watching a 24/7 live blog all the time," Ms Salemi said. "The Iranian diaspora, we are really tired of people being used as collateral damage." She's angry her family in Tehran have no bomb shelter to go to and worried about what could happen to her elderly grandparents after Donald Trump warned some 10 million people in Iran's capital to evacuate. The president said he will make a decision about whether the US joins the conflict within two weeks, demanding Iran's unconditional surrender. However, Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the conflict. "I texted my cousin last night telling him I loved him and there's a great numbness that comes with feeling like you're saying 'I love you' to someone for the last time," Ms Salemi said. "I'm yet to hear back from that text message." More than 2000 Australians have registered for assistance to leave Iran and more than 1200 have registered to leave Israel, with Australian military personnel and aircraft being deployed to help. Oscar's parents have barely left their bomb shelter since the conflict flared and he doesn't know how they'll come home, after receiving a warning they may not be safe at Jordan's land border crossing. "I really feel for my parents, I feel for everyone in Tehran, in Gaza, in Tel Aviv," Oscar said. "None of them deserve it, it's exhausting." He's grateful to have grown up in Australia where he and Ms Salemi can lean on each other for support. "I do think that there's something really special about this country where you can have this kind of friendship," he said. "I hope most Australians don't have to understand what it's like having family in these kinds of circumstances." Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 639 people and wounded more than 1300 others, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Israel says Iran's retaliatory strikes killed at least 24 people and wounded hundreds. Conflict in the Middle East is thousands of kilometres away from the desks of Saina Salemi and her colleague Oscar, but the pair constantly discuss blasts and evacuation warnings. Ms Salemi hasn't spoken to her family in Iran for more than three days due to a nation-wide internet blackout, while Oscar - who asked that his surname not be used - has no idea when he'll next see his parents who are trapped in Israel. "My helplessness would have been made worse had someone like Oscar not been here. There's only so many people in your life that can truly understand a situation like this," Ms Salemi told AAP. Israel and Iran have been trading strikes since the Israeli military began its attack a week ago in a bid to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, but geopolitical tensions are not dividing the two friends from Melbourne. "Despite what these countries are putting each other through, the fact that it hasn't got between us even for a millisecond, I feel very touched," Oscar said. The pair are consumed by worry for their families and appalled by the scale of human suffering in countries they remember fondly from holidays. "I said to Ocar, I feel like I'm going crazy, because everybody around me is moving so normally and is going about their day-to-day lives, and I'm just watching a 24/7 live blog all the time," Ms Salemi said. "The Iranian diaspora, we are really tired of people being used as collateral damage." She's angry her family in Tehran have no bomb shelter to go to and worried about what could happen to her elderly grandparents after Donald Trump warned some 10 million people in Iran's capital to evacuate. The president said he will make a decision about whether the US joins the conflict within two weeks, demanding Iran's unconditional surrender. However, Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the conflict. "I texted my cousin last night telling him I loved him and there's a great numbness that comes with feeling like you're saying 'I love you' to someone for the last time," Ms Salemi said. "I'm yet to hear back from that text message." More than 2000 Australians have registered for assistance to leave Iran and more than 1200 have registered to leave Israel, with Australian military personnel and aircraft being deployed to help. Oscar's parents have barely left their bomb shelter since the conflict flared and he doesn't know how they'll come home, after receiving a warning they may not be safe at Jordan's land border crossing. "I really feel for my parents, I feel for everyone in Tehran, in Gaza, in Tel Aviv," Oscar said. "None of them deserve it, it's exhausting." He's grateful to have grown up in Australia where he and Ms Salemi can lean on each other for support. "I do think that there's something really special about this country where you can have this kind of friendship," he said. "I hope most Australians don't have to understand what it's like having family in these kinds of circumstances." Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 639 people and wounded more than 1300 others, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Israel says Iran's retaliatory strikes killed at least 24 people and wounded hundreds. Conflict in the Middle East is thousands of kilometres away from the desks of Saina Salemi and her colleague Oscar, but the pair constantly discuss blasts and evacuation warnings. Ms Salemi hasn't spoken to her family in Iran for more than three days due to a nation-wide internet blackout, while Oscar - who asked that his surname not be used - has no idea when he'll next see his parents who are trapped in Israel. "My helplessness would have been made worse had someone like Oscar not been here. There's only so many people in your life that can truly understand a situation like this," Ms Salemi told AAP. Israel and Iran have been trading strikes since the Israeli military began its attack a week ago in a bid to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, but geopolitical tensions are not dividing the two friends from Melbourne. "Despite what these countries are putting each other through, the fact that it hasn't got between us even for a millisecond, I feel very touched," Oscar said. The pair are consumed by worry for their families and appalled by the scale of human suffering in countries they remember fondly from holidays. "I said to Ocar, I feel like I'm going crazy, because everybody around me is moving so normally and is going about their day-to-day lives, and I'm just watching a 24/7 live blog all the time," Ms Salemi said. "The Iranian diaspora, we are really tired of people being used as collateral damage." She's angry her family in Tehran have no bomb shelter to go to and worried about what could happen to her elderly grandparents after Donald Trump warned some 10 million people in Iran's capital to evacuate. The president said he will make a decision about whether the US joins the conflict within two weeks, demanding Iran's unconditional surrender. However, Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the conflict. "I texted my cousin last night telling him I loved him and there's a great numbness that comes with feeling like you're saying 'I love you' to someone for the last time," Ms Salemi said. "I'm yet to hear back from that text message." More than 2000 Australians have registered for assistance to leave Iran and more than 1200 have registered to leave Israel, with Australian military personnel and aircraft being deployed to help. Oscar's parents have barely left their bomb shelter since the conflict flared and he doesn't know how they'll come home, after receiving a warning they may not be safe at Jordan's land border crossing. "I really feel for my parents, I feel for everyone in Tehran, in Gaza, in Tel Aviv," Oscar said. "None of them deserve it, it's exhausting." He's grateful to have grown up in Australia where he and Ms Salemi can lean on each other for support. "I do think that there's something really special about this country where you can have this kind of friendship," he said. "I hope most Australians don't have to understand what it's like having family in these kinds of circumstances." Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 639 people and wounded more than 1300 others, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Israel says Iran's retaliatory strikes killed at least 24 people and wounded hundreds.