Abbott's Choice of Japan Possibly Influences Defence Testimony

Australia's Senator Nick Xenophon. He comes to Senator Committe meetings well prepared with research. He then asks questions defence officers would prefer he forgot.

--- 

As the Abbott Government has already chosen Japan's Soryu even the most senior defence officials are limited in what they can say to Australian Senate Committees. To provide full and accurate answer to Senators risks being considered disloyal to Australia's (current) Prime Minister Abbott's decision - increasingly know as the Captain's Pick. Put another way accurate information should be avoided if it potentially provides ammunition for politicians who oppose the Japan decision.

Australia has stated a preference for the US submarine AN/BYG-1 combat system (made for US weapons) and US Admiral Thomas is enthusiastic that Australia buy the Soryu. The implication from this is that the US is more likely to supply its combat system with associated US weapons if Australia chooses Japan's Soryu, 

Like many countries Australia has a number of Senate Committees that seek answers from defence civilian and armed services officers. In late February 2015 in a Senate Committee meeting Senator Nick Xenophon (from South Australia) asked questions concerning Australia's known preference in “competitive evaluation process” for a submarine that is highly compatible with, or already uses US weapons. The relevant US weapons include the Harpoon (short-medium range) cruise missile, Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo, and, in future, the Tomahawk (longer range) cruise missile.

More specifically Senator Xenophon asked Australia’s Chief of Navy and the head of the Defence Material Organisation (DMO) whether Australia's defence sector could reply to the Senate Committee's Question on Notice 171. See Committee Meeting transcript 3/4s way down. Question 171, (d)(iii) was:

"Do any German designed submarines carry US weapons (e.g. Mk 48s torpedoes [any variant] or Harpoon missiles)?" 

To this they responded that:

 “Defence is not aware of any German designed submarines that carry US weapons”.

Senator Xenophon then pointed out that a range of Wikipedia articles and official US government documents confirmed that a number of German designed submarines used or can use some US weapons, including those owned by South Korea (in Australia’s region) Greece, Turkey, Israel and Brazil.  

.. Senator Xenophon commented: "Would you understand, Mr King [Head of DMO], that I would be concerned of an error of that nature given the significance? I am concerned that, with such a fundamental error, are you not making decisions on a preferred combat system with US based weapons on the presumption that other combat systems are not compatible with US weapons, which in turn could influence the choice of submarine? You can see my point."

Most have accepted the response to Senator Xenophon as ignorance or oversight, but there is an equally likely explanation.

The head of the Navy and the head of DMO would have been aware that those who oppose "build in Japan" (such as Senator Xenophon) would have been able to use "German built submarines can use US weapons" as an argument for "build German designed submarines in South Australia". 

Naturally Abbott does not want Xenophon or the Labor opposition to be able to say "but the Navy  and DMO have already indicated that "compatibility with US weapons" is a non-argument when claiming Japan's Soryu is preferable to the German contender". 

The defence heads therefore had to rely on seeming ignorance. To provide political ammunition to Senator Xenophon would be entering into the highly political submarine selection issue, after all... 

Another possibility is that the Prime Minister's Office took carriage of the question, provided the wrong answer and the defence heads were forced to live with it. It has already been established that the Prime Minister's Office has taken much of the political carriage of the Soryu issue. After this office handled the Senate Committees questions the defence heads had to wear the acute embarrassment at the Senate committee meeting on the day.

So all this mean's that Abbott's Captain's pick of Japan's Soryu, for the sake of alliance with Japan and the US's advocacy of the Soryu, is influencing otherwise expert testimony on Australia's multi billion (taxpayer) dollar submarine selection.
---

This is the testimony in question given to Senator Xenophon, on US weapons on German designed submarines, at the Senate Committee meeting.

Australian Counter-Terrorism Lawmaking

On June 4, 2014 Australia's ON LINE opinion published an article at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16460 that I wrote concerning laws and the perceived terrorist risks arising from fighting in the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars.The major concern being that amended or new counter-terrorism laws are required to take account of jihadis who wish to return to Australia or do return. Note - towards the end of the article some terrorism problems in Germany are described. I have slightly modified this Australia by the Indian Ocean blog version:

Australian Counter-Terrorism Lawmaking

Ongoing civil wars in Syria and Iraq are making the job of police and security agencies in Australia even more complex and daunting than usual. An increase in the number of young men going overseas to fight in these civil wars carries with it the risk they will bring newly acquired violent skills back to Australia. Other countries, including those in Europe, are also responding to perceived increases in terrorism risks. We may be of many faiths but we are Australians first so shouldn't be ruled by religion.

The Federal Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, discussed these issues with the peak Islamic leadership (senior Imams) on Wednesday, July 2, 2014. Senator Brandis said "The Abbott government is absolutely determined that the troubles in the Middle East will not have an impact of Australia's domestic population. We acknowledge that this is an important national security issue." Sheikh Saleem, a member of the National Imams Council responded that "It is a matter for all of us…to build a secure and peaceful Australia and this a very challenging time [. The] news that over 60 Australians are participating in war in Syria and Iraq is a shock to every individual Muslim in this country."

To address these heightened concerns about international and home-grown terrorism the Government is scheduled, on July 14, 2014, to introduce a range of proposed amendments to national security legislation into Parliament. This will be followed by more proposed amendments over the next few months. These initial proposed amendments concern: Australian police and security agencies' powers to conduct surveillance in countries where governance has broken down; powers to monitor and disrupt suspect computer networks; suspension of passports; and other issues. These represent the most major proposed changes to counter-terrorism laws since those introduced by the Howard Government in 2005.  The amendments are mainly based on recommendations of a parliamentary committee inquiry into intelligence and security. These are contained in a report tabled under the previous (Labor) Government last year. The proposed amendments also draw on recommendations in the latest Annual Report of the outgoing Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM), Bret Walker.

Checks and balances are important particularly over major changes to counter-terrorism laws, but it appears one check is to be abolished. While major counter-terrorism amendments are about to go before Parliament the  Government is recommending that (to save money and reduce duplication) the position of INSLM be terminated (see this Brisbane Times article). Bret Walker wrote on page 3 of the 2014 INSLM Annual Report: "The INSLM is not aware of any other officer, agency or "level" of government doing what Parliament required to be done by the INSLM Act enacted in 2010.''

Australia's concern over heightened radicalism caused by the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars has also been felt by other Western countries including those in Europe. More than 300 Germans and 2,000 – 3,000 other Europeans are estimated to be involved in Syrian and Iraqi fighting.

It is thought that most Europeans and Australians who are involved have used Turkey as the initial entry point by walking, or been driven, over the Turkish border into Syria. McClatchy News reports that since 2011 Turkey has not banned this movement of young men crossing over the Turkish border to fight in Syria or Iraq. Religious differences may play a part in this situation. Most Turks are Sunni, like most anti-government insurgents in Syria and Iraq, while Syrian and Iraqi government forces are mainly Shiite.

McClatchy News reports an aspect of what might be a relatively humanitarian German approach to terrorism issues :"Claudia Dantschke, a German specialist in Islam who tries to identify and counsel families where the young people are at risk of choosing the fight, says the official reaction struggles to keep up with the increased intensity of recruiting actions." She wrote in an email "The public awareness for the problem of young people from Germany joining the jihad has increased, so more families are turning to us for help." She says Germany faces "a massive increase in propaganda from recruiters for [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)]…[ISIS] have Germans spreading their propaganda on Facebook in German, in groups frequented by teenagers and on pages of people they identify with. The extent and effect of this radical direct approach is a new thing."

Anxiety that civil wars in the Middle East may result in violence here in Australia provides one of the justifications (along with communications technological change) for amended counter-terrorism laws. Australians shouldn't become involved in other people's wars. If they do it should be as a result of legitimately constituted processes of government. The comeback that our armed forces become involved forgets that Australia's leaders are democratically voted in by all Australians over 18 and can be voted out. There is also little risk that ours soldiers might commit violent acts once they return to Australia. Terrorism is a global fear that shouldn't impinge on our lives.

Pete