Don’t drink the Kool Aid

Currently, the world sees itself embroiled in three major geostrategic situations that could result in global, or at least broader regional, conflict:

1. Israel-Arab War

2. Russia-Ukraine War

3. Competition in Pacific

This has been able to come about through the inefficacy of the United Nations, the whims of politicians to use conflict in order to obfuscate their domestic political issues, and, importantly, the collective echo-chambers of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ rhetoric on behalf of our politicians, reinforced by the traditional and social media feeds. This serves to further exacerbate geostrategic sabre rattling, while further undermining the security, safety and stability of our citizens. If we wish to come back from the brink of a potential global conflict - though, depending on your interpretation, one might assume with Asia in a Cold-War, the Middle East in a growing regional conflict, and Europe in a currently limited (but with all the potential to expand more regionally) war, we are kind of replicating WWII, at least geographically – then we need to stop drinking the Kool Aid of our political masters and hold them to account for their words and actions.

So here’s a hypothetical - If there were a nation whose actions and intentions were inimical to ours, and sought to use their geopolitical, military, and economic strength to coerce, control, impinge on territory, refuse access to basic needs, and otherwise instigate conflict, would we choose a response that met our strategic interests while provided support to those who’s treatment by the belligerent was so demonstrably wrong?

Of course we would. For Australia, we finally did when Timor successfully sought its independence from Indonesia (although, some may say this was 25 years too late and only undertaken to secure access to the Timor oil reserves). We did when America was attacked by Al Quada in 2001 and found ourselves embroiled in a strategically mismanaged quagmire for 20 years. The same can be said for our closest allies, the US and the UK, throughout the 80 years since WWII. And we see this play out in the West’s support for the Ukraine through provision of arms, intelligence, and training from all three, and countless other democracies.

But on the Flip-Side - In the case of the Middle East, should we not expect Iran to be quite pissed off and, given the destruction Israel has inflicted on her Palestinian and Lebanese neighbours not just in the last year, but with increasing boldness since 1948, respond in support of her culturally, religiously, and politically aligned partners? The West responding with rhetoric such as:

Yet, taking umbrage at counter-Western narrative by Iran, Russia, et al. Seemingly lost on the Western representatives at the UN General Assembly was the accurate, yet wholly hypocritical, comment by Russia’s representative when he called the assassination of Nasrallah a War Crime. We, those on the side of democracy, decency, and the accepted global order, lambasted Russia over the Litvinenko and Navalny assassinations, yet laud Israel for their assassinations of the Hamas and Hezbollah leadership.

Here’s the ‘So What?’ as far as I see it. Notwithstanding the propensity for the Russia-Ukraine War, the China-West Competition, and the Israel-Arab conflict to draw us into another World War, this time with numerous actors in possession of nuclear weapons, the biggest risk is that of an own-goal for the West, negating the kinetic needs of our adversaries.

What do I mean by this? Well, in the 2021 Australian Census, we discovered that Australia was 51.5% made up of first- and second-generation citizens - that is, either immigrants, or children of immigrants; of these, some 87,343 were Lebanese-born, 70,899 Iran-born, 2,959 Palestine-born, 23,862 Russia-born, and 549,618 China-born immigrants – a large number of new Australians that, while no doubt immigrating to either leave a certain way of life, or seeking to capitalise on Australia’s, would still have a familial, cultural, and religious link with their birth-nation. Therefore, the more we reinforce Western rhetoric, or denigrate the non-Western rhetoric, the more chance we have to marginalise these new Australians, and those that are second-, or greater-, generation immigrants. This marginalisation would likely lead to greater division within Australian society, increases in protests and conflict between citizens and the authorities, and, potentially, give rise to the propensity for home-grown terrorism. Dealing with this type of domestic disturbance, it would be very difficult for Australia to remain vigilant for, and responsive to, threats from other States.

Surely, we would secure better outcomes for our multi-cultural community by seeking to galvanise all cultural, linguistic, and religious sectors of Australia under one collective strategy that demonstrates our humanity, humility, independence, and integrity. One that calls out belligerents, whether they be Hamas, Israel, Hezbollah, Iran, the United States, Russia, or China; and one that demonstrates our national acknowledgment of our own wrong doings, and holds to account the perpetrators, and those that set the conditions for said wrong doings. Would this not serve as a better example of our democratic values, deny the chances for marginalisation to take effect, and galvanise the Australian community behind a balanced and humanity-centric political system? I believe so.

To do this, we need to stop drinking the Kool Aid of Western rhetoric. We need to challenge the claims and assertions, and fact check our leaders’ every comment. We must challenge our own narrative and force our politicians to find the humanity in their policies. Maybe this would see us negate our geostrategic risks through a balanced paradigm, limit the geostrategic sabre-rattling, and see Australia retake its place as the ‘Luck Country’.