What might President Hilary Clinton’s foreign policy have looked like 2017-2020?

……extract from my book “Australia and the World 2040”.

In 2018, an alliance of Arab Academics, leading business people, politicians, and lay people formed a group called “Towards a true Arab Secular Consensus” TTASC. The basis of this organisation was a five year Study by a group of sociologists from Cairo University which looked at Arab societies pre and post the so-called Arab Spring. What they sought to find out was why the so called secularists, and their political parties, had failed so badly in these revolutions. Their conclusions had a profound effect on these people.

Their findings stated that it was not true that secularism had no support in Arab societies – quite the opposite was true. By far the most popular government form was a secular government where constitutions formally separated Church and State. This was of course what all the dictators or Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt claimed to be the case with their dictatorships. But it was not the case at all. In those societies, the governments designated a particular church which favoured their world view, supported them with cash and resources, and squeezed the other ones out. There was never a secular state as such. This arrangement so annoyed the other churches, that when the Arab Spring came they saw it as their chance for revenge, and managed to highjack the democratic agenda through superior organisation and funding from sympathetic petro states before the true secular forces could get focussed and organised. The new TTASC organisation sought to educate, create debate, and form political parties to argue for what they regarded as true secularism. Secretly, Western intelligence services began to fund the TTASC.

Hilary Clinton could see this too, as she sought to find a way through the mess which was Syria. In her inauguration speech of 2017, Clinton went said:

“Unfortunately, we live in a dangerous world. The civil war in Syria has continued on its bloody path now for almost 6 years. The factions are no closer to resolution than they were four years ago, in spite of our military trying to blast then apart with our extraordinarily accurate and skilled strategic bombing from our drones. This is the most dangerous situation in the world right now, and I pledge to work with our Middle Eastern Allies and friends in finding some sort of peace in this troubled country. We must find a way of showing all Syrians that a society can be formed which treats all religions equally, and that Governments are seen to be even-handed in the eyes of all of its citizens”.

It was true that the Syrian Civil War had raged on since 2011, when the so-called Arab Spring showed so much promise of an Arab democratic awakening. Unlike Libya and Tunisia, which settled down fairly quickly to stable but not exactly democratic secular regimes, Syria in 2017 remained a quagmire and Clinton was entitled to some caution. What followed though was some of the most effective US diplomacy in living memory.

Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, made it his mantle when he came to office in the second Barrack Obama term, that he would do everything in his power to obtain an Arab-Israeli settlement. It took him nearly four years, but eventually he had an agreement in June 2016. In exchange of land for peace i.e. in other words, substitute the land taken by the ultra orthodox settler movement on Arab land for land in Israel which presented a corridor between the West-Bank and the Gaza Strip (something the Palestinian had always longed for, and which in many ways made the new Palestinian state viable), and in declaring Jerusalem an international city under collective control of Israel, Palestine and the UN. Both the Palestinian side and the Israeli side now had something they could live with. They had a mutual interest in making it work, but no-one could have predicted the Syrian mess.

By 2016, the Syrian war had been going on for 5 years, locked in a stalemate which would have made World War 1 Generals proud. With so much hope after the historic Arab-Israeli settlement, the region seemed destined to slide back into chaos. They did not bargain on either Clinton’s determination, or Kerry’s skill. Clearly the only way to save this situation was to get the Arabs to resolve the situation themselves.

The incoming Clinton administration knew that there were grave concerns in the Middle East about Obama’s Climate Treaty with Xi JinPing. After all, in the last three years since action on climate change had gathered force, they had seen the oil price drop from $110 per barrel in 2010 to $62 in 2016. This could only be as a result of a migration away from oil to alternative energy sources as the price of carbon started to climb. For this, the Gulf States were in a bind. Much of their wealth when the oil money was rolling-in in the last 50 years had been wasted in extravagant lifestyles of the ruling elites, and flagrant wastage  of energy by the regimes which paid zero notice of modern energy conservation technologies. Further, they had done little to use modern financial devices such as sovereign wealth funds to accumulate cash and invest it for the long term in the interest of their populations as the Norwegian Government had done.

Clinton wanted to do a deal. She suggested the Middle Eastern Arab States needed as one to force a regional settlement on Syria, whereby the various ethnic and religious factions were given a district which they could regard as their sovereign territory. This might end up a bit like the former Yugoslavia, but it might be the price that needed to be paid. Further, Clinton advised that she expected the Gulf States to commit to forming a regional military force of 100,000 men to go into Syria after this regional agreement was signed to ensure its transition.

In parallel, the CIA and MI6 funded the emergence of credible educated secularists, and used modern communication techniques to position them as the alternatives to the literally warring factions of Syria. In doing this, the US gave these statesmen a gift in that if they could come to a settlement, all imports of oil in the future into the US would be ordered from the Gulf States (this was hardly a big concession because she knew that oil use in the US was dramatically dropping in favour of alternative energies and the local production of fracking inspired natural gas). It nevertheless gave the Sheiks of the Gulf States something to sell to the populations, and greatly increased the power and prestige of the secularists.

In 2018, after nearly 10 years of war, Clinton had an agreement, and the Arab Military force moved into Syria to keep the peace. It would be another 6 years until their withdrawal, after much more bloody fighting and killing, at the end of which half a dozen mini states were formed in Syria, with secularists heading four of their governments. Many equated it to the portioning of India and Pakistan in the late 1940’s – an apt description.

Clinton had several other urgent foreign affairs issues to address if she was going to keep her promise of progress in the world, not least the Korean Peninsula. North Korea by 2017, had become even more unstable than before. In December, 2016, there appeared to have been a military coup in North Korea. The People’s Radio broadcast on 16th March 2017 that due to Kim Jong-Un’s inability to stand up to the West and the criminal regime in South Korea, VMar Ri Yong Ho, previously head of the Korean People’s Army had taken over as President and Prime Minister. In the broadcast he said the people could no longer tolerate the appeasement of the West and China and the Korean state would do all in its power to stand up to imperialist and appeasers in the interests of the heroic Korean People. China’s reaction was fierce and decisive, in that if they did not get undertakings of peace from the North Koreans in the next three days, they would take decisive action to shore up their position.

Within 24 hours, the North Koreans started shelling the Chinese Province of Shenyang “in retaliation for the Chinese aggression”. China responded by cutting off all food and water supplies to Korea. Within 12 hours, North Korea landed a “dirty” nuclear bomb on Shenyang killing 3500 people in the process. Within two days, an invasion force had amassed on the border and went over on the night of 24th December.

The West was torn. On the one hand it regarded Pyongyang as dangerously unstable, but it was greatly worried that the invasion of another country by China unchallenged by the West might set a dangerous precedent. Clinton’s response was to immediately fly to Beijing for emergency talks with her new friend Xi Jinping. The results were momentous.

In the interests of stability, and the economic and political progress of the Asia region, Xi proposed a settlement. China would force the collapse of the North Korean regime in return for the withdrawal of all US troops on the Peninsula and the US nuclear guarantee for South Korea. Within 12 months, there would be free and fair elections for the whole of the Korean Peninsula overseen by the European Union who has no vested interest in this fight. After that, it would be up to the new Korean Government to define the way forward. In the meantime, a UN military force from all over the world, but specifically excluding US, Chinese, Japanese and Korean troops will be assembled to keep order on both sides of the border, and a UN appointed Administrator will run North Korea in the meantime.

The new united Korea leant much from the German unification process. For starters, they avoided the huge reconstruction costs that the western part of Germany poured into the East by basically allowing the market, in large part, to finance it. This was brought about by having a federation with two currencies, and watch south Korean, Japanese, European, US and Chinese investment money pour into the North until in 50 years time when the north and south economies would become  similarly prosperous, the currency values would converge at which time they would have a united currency. In the meantime the plan was that North Korea would become a huge low cost factory for the south and the rest of Asia, supported by South Korean expertise, money and their huge conglomerates. The subsequent new taxes would largely support the significant infrastructure which would need to be build to get the population out of poverty and into productive work.

And so it proved to be. Today, in 2040, North Koreans have about twice the average income as the Chinese in 2015, most of the population are now out of poverty, there is no starvation and the Koreans are on track to converge their currencies in 2050. With a population of about 70 million and growing at about 1% per annum, they are on track to have an economy about the same size as Japan by 2075. Japan’s population contracted from 125m to 85 million from 2010 to 2040, and is expected to be less than the unified Korea by 2075.

In 2017, Clinton and Kerry jumped at this new Korean opportunity. This was an historic chance to rid the world of yet another rogue nuclear state. Just as in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, the British and French were less than enthusiastic about a united Germany, the second and third most powerful states in Asia, Japan and India, had similar reservations about Korea. The new right wing government in Japan was particularly upset about being excluded in an arena they regarded as their “back yard”, but for the sake of peace, they acquiesced. So eventually did the Indians in return for US support in their continuing conflicts with Pakistan.

Clinton had achieved one more of her dominos for the sake of world peace. Very soon another would emerge which may have a greater long term impact than any of the others.

In 2014, ex-cricketer Imran Khan became the new President of Pakistan. Cambridge educated Khan, playboy extraordinaire from his life in London, had returned to Pakistan to enter politics. His ticket was pro-Islam, but not terrorism, but he very much disagreed with Barrack Obama’s policy of drone strikes in border areas of north western Pakistan near the border of Afghanistan. Khan argued that there are the “good” Taliban and the “bad” Taliban. He promised in his election manifesto that if he could get the Americans to cease their drone attacks that he could get the “good” to control the “bad”. In other words, cease the terrorist attacks on troops in Afghanistan stemming from Pakistan, and set up an Islamist government without the extremes i.e. no education for girls, be-heading or cutting off of hands, or female circumcision. They would still have Sharia law and strict adherence to Islamic beliefs.

He also undertook to send in a dozen divisions of Pakistani troops into those provinces to rid them of extremist under the guidance of the “good”. He knew this may be just a ruse to settle old scores but thought it worth the risk. In return for this clean up, the US would finance a security wall (not unlike that seen in East Germany) along the Afghanistan border to keep the factions apart. This Clinton agreed to.

Beyond that, Khan wanted to transition a fundamental change in the way the sub-continent functioned. He was very much aware of the historic enmity between Pakistan and India, which had poisoned progress since partition in 1947. For instance in 2012, the total trade between the two countries was $2.4 billion. This compared to trade between Pakistan (population 182m) and China (population 1300m) for the same period of $12billion when Pakistan and India (population 1200m) live next door to one another. Or to look at it another way, neighbours Australia (population 23m) and New Zealand (population 5m) had overall two-way trade in 2012 of $21b. Pakistan was nowhere near maximizing their economic and trade ties with India or vice versa.

Khan was very much aware of the lack of economic activity on the sub-continent, and saw fixing that as a means of lifting a lot of his population out of the grinding poverty that so many of them lived in. As part of the resolution of the border disputes and bringing the Taliban under control, he advised Clinton that he would propose an economic union between the major countries of the sub-continent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka), if she would sponsor that trading block into the Asia-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

This finally came about in mid 2018, and in 2038 India and Pakistan did a total of $158billion in total trade.

The Mountain Obama has to climb in his Second Term

With the re-election of Barack Obama for a second term, it is worth reviewing where the US is at as a society and why Obama needs to take some radical surgery to the country’s body politic to make significant progress.

First though, I should say, that if we had to have a global superpower, the US is about as benign as they come. It has been the global policeman for 75 years now, and has presided over a period of unprecedented global growth, prosperity, and largely without war (at least world war). Sadly though I fear this is all about to come to an end. With the rise of China, the US has significant foreign policy and military challenges, which will be difficult to address, especially with the current state of the US economy and what looks like a permanent realignment of relative might of the two super-powers.

Interestingly, there was recently conducted a study by Stanford University about the attitudes of senior American military officers past and present. Surprisingly, for a group you would normally expect to be strongly pro Republican, and pro military spending, nearly eighty percent of them came out strongly for deeply cutting defence expenditures and spending the money on rebuilding America, especially educational institutions, healthcare, infrastructure, and investing in innovation. What drove such a surprising result? Well one thing the US military is, it is not stupid. These officers fully realised, and articulated very forcibly, their long term future depends on a strong economy. Without economic strength, military might disappears viz; the Roman Empire; the British Empire; the Soviet Empire; the Ottoman Empire. These capable individuals realise this very much, and seemingly are willing to articulate the case for change

So far, Obama has been playing a “hands off” approach to foreign policy and when he has intervened to has been remotely i.e. using surrogate armies and/or heavy use of drone aircraft which allows US pilots to fight a war from the safety of their own US located Airbase. With China, both sides have been treaded warily as they size each other up in Asia, and Asia skirmishes have largely been between China and US allies, particularly over the islands in the South China Sea.  There will come a time though when the US will be forced to act in Asia e.g. North Korea, Pakistan, Iran. That will be Obama’s real test.

On the economic front, there is progress being made, much of it coming from market forces rather than government policies. The most significant of these is the historic comeback of the US as a global energy power, mostly off the back of technology change which has allowed access to huge oil and gas deposits from shale which previously was not possible. This means the US will be a larger producer of petroleum products than Saudi Arabia by 2020. Coupled with this, there are domestic regulations in the US which says that domestic gas demand has to be satisfied before exports can be made, and given the US’s highly developed domestic pipeline system, this means the whole of the US can be supplied from anywhere in the country. With gas now flooding the domestic market from shale, at 20% of the market price in Asia, this has given a huge boost to energy dependent industries which have all of a sudden become internationally competitive again. The lower US dollar has also helped in this. This has caused an improvement in employment rates, and with it, a pick-up in housing prices. It may be that 2013/14 will see America climb out of its self imposed trough US will become a significant exporter of gas in the next five years, no doubt causing a downward pressure on world prices, and therefore becoming a significant stimulant for the world economy.

This though will do little to solve the serious social inequity in the US which is significantly disenfranchising more than 50% of the population. For instance, less than 50% of the population pay income tax. This is not because they are cheating, it is because 50% of the population represents 3% of the national income and so simply do not earn enough money to pay income tax. This means the country as a whole is wasting large chunks of its manpower and brain power simply through lack of opportunity and a third rate education system. Coupled with health system which costs twice as much per capita than any other major OECD country, but gets fourth rate outcomes, this same 50% are poorly supported from a health perspective and from a social income perspective.

In his first term, Obama made some significant progress on these issues against fierce opposition from the Republican congress, notably in Health care, but the US is still significantly behind other equivalent OECD countries. In my view, nothing exemplifies the parlous state of American politics and economics as much as the US health system. The US currently ranks about 15th in the table of health indicators in the OECD, yet nothing gets the Republican Party so worked up than when “Obama care” comes up. Even with the progress being made, there are still significant parts of the US population without adequate health-cover, and treatment will remain significantly more expensive than in equivalent countries until Obama takes on the doctors, and introduces a national health insurance scheme with all the economies of scale that represents.
One thing we can say though is that one of the most consistent things about America throughout its history is its ability to re-invent itself when all seems lost: slavery; the Civil War; the Great Depression; Pearl Harbour; the Cold War; Russians putting the first man into space; Vietnam. Unfortunately, now almost every statistic, financial and no- financial, shows the US in decline. And its political system is so badly broken, in spite of Barrack Obama’s best efforts. There has seemed simply an inability to do anything about it, particularly leading up to the last Presidential election. One of the outcomes of that election though is the naval-gazing that has caused in the GOP, and the willingness of least some in that party to consider modernising themselves. This has not yet seen any change in their politicians in Congress and compromise from their side still seems out of the question.
Let’s take a look at these key social indicators:

  1. 1.       US Social Indicators are going in the wrong direction.
    The Table below from the OECD shows just how badly the US is doing as a society. Nearly all its social indicators are in the bottom half of the OECD league tables.  What the table below shows is the distribution of social indicators across all OECD countries, and breaks them up into countries in the top two deciles, in the bottom two deciles, and in- between. The measures include:
    a. Household income (PPP)
    b. Ratio of employment to population 15-64
    c. Unemployment rate population 15-64
    d. Reading literacy scales
    e. Poverty rates
    f. Percentage finding it difficult or very difficult to manage on current income
    g. Percentage of average gross wage to meet poverty threshold
    h. Life3 expectancy at birth
    i. Infant mortality rate
    j. Rate of positive experience
    k. Percentage of persons satisfied with water quality
    l. Percentage of people expressing a high level of trust in others
    m. Corruption index
    n. Pro-social behaviour
    o. Voting rates
    p. Tolerance of Diversity

Net Score of top decile minus bottom decile scores by OECD countries

Countries Top Tweo Deciles Bottom Two  Deciles Net Score Net Ranking
Australia 8 0 8 3
Austria 4 0 4 10
Belgium 1 0 1 17
Canada 4 1 3 12
Chile 2 8 -6 27
Czech Republic 2 6 -4 24
Denmark 10 0 10 1
Estonia 0 9 -9 32
Finland 7 0 7 5
France 1 0 1 17
Germany 2 0 2 15
Greece 0 5 -5 25
Hungry 1 9 -8 30
Iceland 9 0 9 2
Ireland 5 1 4 10
Israel 0 9 -9 31
Italy 1 3 -2 21
Japan 5 2 3 12
Korea 2 5 -3 22
Luxenberg 5 2 3 12
Mexico 1 11 -10 33
Netherlands 8 0 8 3
New Zealand 6 0 6 9
Norway 7 0 7 5
Poland 0 7 -7 29
Portugal 0 5 -5 25
Slovak Republic 2 8 -6 27
Slovania 2 1 1 17
Spain 2 2 0 20
Sweden 7 0 7 5
Switzerland 8 1 7 5
Turkey 1 14 -13 34
United Kingdom 3 1 2 15
United States 2 5 -3 22

Source: Compilation from OECD Social Indicators in Society at a Glance 2011

There are many highlights in this information, but the most worrying from the US’s perspective is that it comes 22 out of 34, behind such advanced economies as Italy, Spain, Slovenia and equal with Korea. To be fair, it is likely that many of the European countries have gone backwards since the GFC and the Euro crisis(s), but so will have the US. It is likely that countries such as Korea and Israel will have gone ahead of the US since then given neither was greatly affected by either the GFC or the Euro crisis. This probably puts the US about 25th, a disgrace given it is the wealthiest country on earth, and is the most advanced technologically, militarily, and academically.
2. US Obsession with Religion: 
If you look at the measures outlined above, many of the social indicators where the US scores badly is what could broadly be called “social tolerance”. Much of this stems from the blind adherence to religious doctrines for much of the population, and much of its politics. The US is about the only country in advanced economies where it would be impossible for a non-believer to be elected to public office. Over 80% of the population goes to church on Sundays, where in the rest of the anglo world it is less than 10%. Even in the so called Catholic countries of Europe, such as Italy and Ireland, church attendances are less than 20%.
As a direct result of this social intolerance in the US, social measures are well below advanced countries norms. Take teenage pregnancies. With the exception of Russia (practices there are distorted by the championing of abortion as the preferred form of birth control under communism, and these practices continue today), the US has the worst record of teenage pregnancies in the OECD.

 

 

Why? Primarily the opposition of the religious right, and the Catholic Church to both birth control and comprehensive sex education in schools (see table below);
Birth, Abortion and Pregnancy Rates for Developed Countries Ages 15-19 (per 1,000 population)

Countries Births Abortions Pregnancies
Russian Federation 45.6 56.1 101.7
United States 54.4 29.2 83.6
New Zealand 34.0 20.0 54.0
UK 28.4 18.6 47.0
Canada 24.2 21.2 45.4
Australia 19.8 23.8 43.6
Sweden 7.7 17.2 24.9
Denmark 8.3 14.4 22.7
Germany 12.5 3.6 16.1
Netherlands 8.2 4.0 12.2
Italy 6.9 5.1 12.0
Japan 3.9 6.3 10.2

*Note: pregnancies exclude miscarriages; data from mid-1990’s. SOURCE: The Alan Guttmacher Institute report on Teenage Sexuality and Reproductive Behavior in Developed Countries

Related to this, is the increasing trend in the US of children not been vaccinated for preventable diseases, mostly because of opposition from the religious right, who regard it as “ungodly”. The result, eminently preventable diseases such as hooping cough, measles and polio are on the rise there, when even in the developing world, partly as a result of the great work by that great American Bill Gates, and his Gates Foundation, rates are rapidly decreasing. In most of the developed world, these diseases are virtually eliminated by almost universal inoculations of the young.
3. The Paralysis of the American political system.
The US is not a Westminster style parliamentary democracy. Although difficult to believe in the current state of play, the US is not an adversarial system in the sense that Westminster democracies like Australia, the UK and Canada are. The way the US system has worked for 400 years is through compromise and consensus, with much of the power residing with the President. It depends on the legislature reaching compromises in order that the business of government gets done. Now, however, one side, The Republicans, have allowed their party to be high-jacked by extremists (the Tea Partyists), and not very bright ones at that, who regard compromise as a sin (a word used advisedly). Much of their ideology comes from the extreme right parties of Europe (Le Pen in France, the National Front in Britain, the successors to the Nazis in Germany, and One Nation in Australia). These parties generally are made up of disaffected working class voters, often extremely racist, and often under-educated. They carry with them an under-lying hatred of the way things are, and a frustration that they feel they are not getting their “fair share”. Usually, when prosperity continues these people remain in a small minority, but after the economic dislocation in Europe and the US in the last 5 years it has created an environment for extreme views to flourish, in much the same way that the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression was directly responsible for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. This time, however, the greatest victim is the US itself, where they have managed to successfully press the self destruct button. This will only be addressed by the moderates in the Republican Party recognising the need to modernise, and being able to convince the social conservatives led by the Tea Party. It is in the early stages of this playing out, but the GOP will rapidly become irrelevant without reform, and will probably lead to the emergence of a new party or permanently entrench the Democrats in the White House.
For the current state of play to continue, the US has almost become ungovernable. No matter how competent the individual is in the White House, and how much his/her heart is in the right place, there seems to be no way by which will emerge a means to bring in the desperately needed reforms which will reverse the poor social outcomes listed above, and restore the United States reputation, previously assumed by the rest of the world, as being the beacon for progressive thinking, social innovation, and sound economic management. The next three years will be critical to this, and Obama will either emerge in his second term as a reformist president in the Roosevelt or Johnston mould, or to be cast out as the biggest lost opportunity in US history.

 

The Real Tony Abbott…

For all those who are interested in interesting debate, good governance, and for Australia to continue as a tolerant, inclusive, civilised society, I highly recommend you read this article…

http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-thirst-for-power-lies-at-the-heart-of-abbotts-agenda-20121022-2818x.html

Written by ex diplomat, senior public servant, and political insider Bruce Haigh, it gives an insiders view of Abbott dating back to his undergraduate days right through to his present persona. It explains more clearly than I have seen elsewhere why Abbott behaves as he does, and why he is incapable of modifying his current self destructive ways.

It also spells out very specifically why we must all work (on both sides of politics) to ensure Abbott never becomes Prime Minister.

Tony Abbott just does not get it….

Given Tony Abbott’s latest remarks dog-whistling Julia Gillard about not understanding children, I’m beginning to believe he simply has no idea what is sexist and what is not. Otherwise, given his greatly weakened political position post the now famous Gillard speech, why would he deliberately go out of his way to continue to confirm the main point of the speech ie he is sexist and mysoginist.

I am now convinced he can not distinguish right from wrong in this sphere, and continues to put his foot in it because he can not tell what is acceptable and what is not. After all, we must all remember that Tony Abbott’s personal advisors on social policy are George Pell and Alan Jones –  hardly bastions of socially progressive thought. Indeed it goes a long way to explain why Abbott to many Australians appears to be a throw back to 1950s Australia. Now we all remember Abbott’s political hero is John Howard, and Howard himself championed at times the “values” of the 1950s (remember the “white picket fence” imagery), but Howard, although himself socially conservative like Abbott, never sought to thrust his opinions onto the Australian electorate in this area. For Abbott, this is his modus operandi.

Now that the over the top scare campaign on the carbon tax has been revealed for what it was – a great big new lie – Abbott now has very little to fall back on except campaign on his very conservative social values which are so out of touch with the mainstream Australian electorate,  he is continually found out on them. Eventually, he will self-implode and the LNP will be left with no choice but to replace him.

And wouldn’t that be a relief to us all.

Why Muslin Demonstrations are Different

It is very disturbing and very disappointing to see the over-reaction of Muslim youth in many countries to what was an incredibly stupid movie posted online about the Prophet. As a firm non-believer, it is difficult for me to understand such religious fervour , but what I can say is I can appreciate the reasons for the revulsion of the general population to such violent demonstrations, when such revulsions are not as apparent in other religions’ over reaction in to slights on their beliefs.

The problem with the public face of Islam is it is almost always predominantly male, young and thuggish. The other religious demonstrations, for instance, the Christian reaction to “The Life of Brian” , which was in many ways equally insulting to Christ, but the reaction was peaceful, predominantly female, and middle aged. It also saw the humour in it, which these young thugs singularly lack.

It is reasonable to ask what is it in Islamic upbringing that does not allow a significant portion of their flock to bush these “insults” off as the stupidity they are? The fact that they can’t, or won’t, both scares and alarms large sections of the Australian population, and creates a backlash against a religion which when practiced in its mainstream is civilising, gentle and inclusive.

The elders of the Muslim faith urgently need to look at their education system, their practices and the way they bring up their children to ensure these extremes are marginalised and such behaviour is shunned universally, by both Muslims and non-Muslims.