Email
Australia has raised its terror alert to high for the first time in 11 years. Asio director general David Irvine today noted that “an increase particularly in intent” now makes an attack “much more likely”, after saying on Tuesday that we are “lucky” to have avoided a domestic terror attack.
Of course, avoiding an attack on Australian soil shouldn’t be left to luck. But while Irvine and members of the federal government have had much to say about the threat from “radicalised” Australians “going to [Iraq and Syria] to fight but also in terms of what they are doing here in Australia with a potential intent to attack”, they have said less about the extent to which Australia’s actions in Iraq, and potentially Syria, contribute to the risk that we might experience violence here at home.
It’s an important question that needs to be answered: if the government is planning to participate in foreign wars they need to be honest with the public, and admit that radicalisation is one of the products of wars which have been encouraged by the political class and the media in this country for over a decade.
On 31 August, when asked if our actions in the Middle East increase the terrorist threat inside Australia, Tony Abbott, the prime minister, responded that “[Irvine] said there was, in his professional judgement, no specific correlation between what the Australian government might do in the Middle East and domestic terrorist threats…”
In response to a similar question put to Irvine at the National Press Club, the Asio boss was a little more circumspect: “I don’t see any immediate correlation between that and the threat levels. Although you can expect that that’s something we’d be looking at.”
On 9 September Irvine appeared on the ABC’s 7.30 programme, and downplayed the link by saying, “That’s a sort of a popular line that you hear. But the fact is that Australia has been named as a terrorist target in Al-Qaida publications and the like for a number of years”.
Yet ASIO’s report to parliament from 2012-2013 suggests otherwise, specifically stating that:
In Australia, there are individuals and small groups who believe an attack here is justified. Issues such as Australia’s military deployments over the last decade, the Syrian conflict, or a belief that the ideals of Australia are in direct conflict with their extreme interpretation of Islam, fuel the radical views of this cohort…
Similarly, Asio’s report to parliament from 2004-2005 – a year after Australia’s participation in the invasion of Iraq – noted that “Most extremists are influenced by foreign events – some in Australia view the Coalition action in Iraq as an attack on all Muslims.”
Abbott and Irvine are the masters of using “detensifiers” like “no specific correlation” and “no immediate correlation” as spin, but Asio’s own official reports make plain sense. Agreeing to airlift arms to Kurdish fighters, or to deploy RAAF Super Hornets in military airstrikes in Iraq or Syria, makes the official assurances that our actions in the Middle East will not increase the domestic terror threats optimistic at best.
The US, which will lead the attack on Isis, is less optimistic. A joint bulletin, issued by the US Department of Homeland Security and FBI in August 2014 to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, urged them to be alert for possible attacks inside the United States in retaliation for US airstrikes.
Importantly, the bulletin states that “civilian deaths reportedly associated with these US military air strikes will almost certainly be used as further examples of a perceived Western war against Islam in English-language violent extremist messaging that could contribute to [homegrown] radicalisation to violence”.
Is it not true that a fertile breeding ground for political radicalisation is created when people feel a sense of injustice? In 2007 an academic study found that fear was isolating Australian Muslims, “leading to distrust of the government and driving them outside the country in their search for information and community”.
Is it not true that the jobless rate for Muslim men is more than double the national average and that Muslims face workplace barriers? Is it not true that a WikiLeaks cable from 2005 revealed that Yasser Soliman, who has held multiple roles on multicultural commissions, argued that “the government’s multicultural policies were in fact important elements in fighting extremism”? Yet the federal government doesn’t have a dedicated multicultural affairs minister, and recently axed the Building Multicultural Communities program.
Is it not true that we can’t simply conduct airstrikes, supply munitions to foreign armies or take sides in wars without inviting potential domestic and international consequences?
Irvine has publicly confirmed that “intelligence is not evidence”. But the careful assessment of intelligence is the basis upon which these organisations give advice to our government and is sufficient to justify government action. We need an assessment of the threat to Australia – not political spin – that is honest about whether Australia’s actions in Iraq and potentially Syria are likely to increase the risk of an attack.
;
Comment from the paper
Steve Bell on RBS – cartoon
John Harris: It’s not just Scotland where politics as usual is finished
Gaby Hinsliff: Fat-shaming: how the slim and sanctimonious help to cause our obesity crisis