RUTHFULLY YOURS

The siren’s call of UN-led multilateralism beckons for the year ahead. Before succumbing yet again to the UN Charter’s endearing promise “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace,” a look back at the devastating record of 2015 is in order.

Number One: In 2015 the world’s nuclear non-proliferation regime was emasculated.

The Security Council had adopted four sanctions resolutions against Iran over almost a decade, resolutions that constituted binding international law. Iran refused to comply with all of them. In response, in July, the Council chose to “terminate” the laws, rather than insist on their implementation.

Successive Security Council resolutions demanded Iran “suspend…all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.” Iran never did. In response, the Council approved the Iran deal and granted Iran a right to enrich.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in December that Iran had engaged in “activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” and had taken specific steps to conceal them. In response, the IAEA decided not to insist on full disclosure but to close the books.

A 2010 Security Council resolution states: “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” In mid-October Iran tested medium-range missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon. In response the UN did nothing. So in early December Iran did it again.

No state interested in acquiring nuclear weapons will henceforth take the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the IAEA or Security Council resolutions on the subject seriously.

Number Two: In 2015 the UN made a mockery of its central tenet of the “equal rights of nations large and small.”

I do not know whether I have been more struck by the similarities between the American and the Australian or the differences. I incline to believe that the similarities are more superficial and the differences more fundamental.
—J. Pierrepont Moffat, American Consul-General in Australia, October 14, 1935

In November 2003, in an ABC radio interview, Andrew Peacock, once leader of the Liberal Party, and a former foreign minister and ambassador to the United States, was asked to identify the main differences between Australians and Americans. Without hesitation Peacock identified four areas in which national beliefs sharply differ: interpretation of the meaning of political freedom; attitudes towards the role of religion in public life and the challenge of American exceptionalism; the place of wealth and economic status in society; and attitudes towards war and the standing of the military. He went on to warn that while Australians and Americans are long-time military allies and share common Western liberal democratic values, they remain, at heart, two distinct nationalities shaped by very different histories.

These contrasting histories need to be carefully examined and understood, if only because casual assumptions about cultural similarities between Australians and Americans only act to conceal important differences—differences that carry with them risks of diplomatic superficiality and political miscalculation. When Mark Twain visited Australia in 1897, he observed that Australians “did not seem to me to differ noticeably from Americans, either in dress, carriage, ways, pronunciation, inflections or general appearance”. In the twentieth century, Twain’s comfortable image of similar peoples—what Alfred Deakin called “the blood affection” between Australians and Americans—was strengthened by the rise of the United States to global power and the pervasive Americanisation of so much of Western popular culture. Yet if Australia is to possess effective statecraft in the new millennium, we must probe beneath the veneer of popular myths and commonplace beliefs.

“We can, for example, avoid Islamic outrages by not having anything to do with Muslims. The world is stumbling towards that solution in the form of Donald Trump’s call for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. In the Republican presidential contender’s words, “We’re gonna have to figure it out: we can’t live like this. It’s going to get worse and worse, we’re going to have more World Trade Centers. It’s going to get worse and worse, folks. We can be politically correct and we can be stupid, but it’s going to be worse and worse.” Mr Trump is aware that his advice in this instance is “probably not politically correct”. Yet that advice would be more palatable to the American public than President Obama’s acceptance of a tolerable level of terrorism.”
There are moments when it can seem the modern world is a dreadful place and growing worse by the day, what with terrorism and a political class terrified of offending with blunt truths those who richly deserve to be offended. But there is hope, genuine hope. Make no mistake about it.

It was in the Kimberly ten-or-so years ago, a couple of kilometres removed from a drill rig I had left at dusk to drive into Derby and drink homemade rum with my friend, Froggy. The wet season was on the verge of breaking. There were low, dark clouds and lightning was playing on the ranges in the distance. Suddenly, in the pleasant gloom, there was a light on the road ahead. I stopped beside it. It was a workman’s Dolphin-type torch with some grease smears on it and turned on, with the light shining in the direction I was driving.

This was a sign from God, obviously, with the message “Your path is righteous.” How else to explain the torch, which must have fallen out of a utility, landed on the ground without breaking, turned itself on in the shock of the landing, and pointed exactly in the direction I was going? The chance of that happening by itself would be infinitesimal. By elimination, the only other explanation was that it was a sign from God. That torch was the modern version of the Burning Bush – giving off light but not being consumed. Much pleased with this silent blessing, I picked it up, turned it off and put it on the seat beside me.

Two hundred metres further along, my headlights revealed a figure walking towards the rig site. It was a campie, a woman in her mid-twenties employed to cook and clean in the rig camp. I stopped and asked if she was OK. She answered in the affirmative and I then asked if she had left a torch on the road. She had, she said, saying that she had left it on in order to be able to find it again in the dark. I said, “you might be needing this” and gave her back the torch. So my communication with God had a human interlocutor, an interlocutor who was horribly profligate and too lazy to carry her guiding light. So much for the spawn of the Boomers treading lightly on the earth. The chemical energy in the battery of that Dolphin torch would have been one of the most expensive power sources on the planet.

President Obama has staked much of his foreign-policy legacy on the Iran nuclear deal, but does that deal effectively give the Iranians veto power over legislation by the U.S. Congress? That’s the question at the center of Tehran’s “outrage” at a security law passed by Congress after the Paris and San Bernardino attacks.

The December omnibus budget law includes a measure revising the Visa Waiver Program. Expedited entry into the U.S. is no longer available to foreign travelers who have visited Iraq, Syria or countries that “repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism” on or after March 1, 2011. Thus the law covers those who have visited Iran, a U.S.-designated state sponsor of terrorism.

Foreign travelers affected by the new law will no longer have visas automatically waived. Instead, they must submit a visa application, pay a fee and submit to an in-person interview at the local U.S. Embassy or consulate, like every other businessman or tourist. The law passed the House 407-19.

Proponents of the nuclear deal fear the visa rules would deter the flow of foreign investors into Iran. So naturally the Iranians went, well, ballistic. In a Dec. 18 interview with the New Yorker, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, “This visa-waver thing is absurd: Has anybody in the West been targeted by any Iranian national?”

Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates on Monday followed their Sunni Muslim allies in Saudi Arabia in severing ties with Iran. This came despite a lecture to Saudis, from the U.S. State Department and most of the Western press, for executing a radical Shiite cleric on the weekend. The execution of Nemer al-Nemer risks “exacerbating sectarian tensions at a time when they urgently need to be reduced,” said State spokesman John Kirby.

Well, what did the Administration and its media allies expect? The U.S. didn’t listen to Saudi Arabia about the Iran nuclear deal, which it believes signals a U.S. strategic tilt toward Iran and its Shiite allies in the Middle East. They see the Administration backing down on sanctions against Iran for testing ballistic missiles that can reach Riyadh long before they get to New York. They feel under threat from an Iran liberated from sanctions, and they don’t believe President Obama will defend them in a conflict. Why should they heed the U.S. now?