Just the sheer size and reach of the Trump Organisation's business interests has implications for U.S. foreign policy

For the last eighteen months in particular there has been media comment on the extensive business interests of U.S. president-elect Donald John Trump.

Since the November 2016 presidential election focus has intensified.

However, the U.S. Constitution drawn up in a simpler century teflon coats presidents - never having envisioned the likes of  Donald Trump.

The reach of Trump’s business interests are said to reach as far as Australia.

Given the man doesn’t seem to understand that the only ethical course would be to divest himself entirely of his business interests by placing them in a genuine blind trust not run by family members, close friends or business partners, so that both America and the world can have a measure of confidence in the his decision making as president, one can only look aghast at the potential for these business interests to fatally infect his presidency and U.S. foreign policy.

In July 2015 Donald Trump disclosed 515 U.S. and foreign corporations or partnerships in which he was either president, partner, chair, director, secretary, member and/or shareholder.

Forbes, 17 August 2015:

Under “Our Hotels” on the Trump Hotel Collection website, it lists six domestic hotels and six international hotels…..

The other hotels abroad are in Toronto, Doonbeg, Ireland, Vancouver, and Baku, Azerbaijan. (Toronto and Vancouver also have a Trump Tower.)

On the website for the Trump Real Estate Collection, nine international properties are listed, including two Trump Towers in India and one in Istanbul, another in Uruguay and another in the Philippines, as well as a Trump World in South Korea, among others.

Donald Trump has an interest in more than 30 U.S. properties, roughly half of which have debt on them according to The New York Times on 20 August 2016:

Debt on properties Mr. Trump owns or leases

PROPERTY	LOCATION	DEBT OUTSTANDING
40 Wall Street	Manhattan	157,400,000
Trump International Hotel*	Washington	127,000,000
Trump National Doral golf resort	Miami	125,000,000
Trump Tower	Manhattan	100,000,000
Trump International Hotel	Chicago	45,000,000
167 East 61st Street	Manhattan	14,500,000
Trump Park Avenue	Manhattan	12,495,000
Trump National Golf Club	Colts Neck, N.J.	11,700,000
4-8 East 57th Street "Niketown"	Manhattan	10,600,000
Seven Springs estate	Mount Kisco, N.Y.	8,000,000
Trump National Golf Club Washington	Potomac Falls, Va.	7,600,000
Trump International Hotel and Tower	Manhattan	7,000,000
Trump International Hotel**	Las Vegas	3,200,000
1094 South Ocean Boulevard	Palm Beach, Fla.	250,000
124 Woodbridge Road	Palm Beach, Fla.	250,000

*This construction loan was for $170 million. The Trump Organization and Times sources confirm roughly $127 million has been drawn down on.
**This loan was worth $110 million in 2010. The Trump Organization says a Trump entity is responsible for $3.2 million of the debt outstanding. The Times could not confirm this.

Debt associated with Mr. Trump's limited partnerships/investments

PROPERTY	LOCATION	PRC  OWNED	DEBT OUTSTANDING
1290 Avenue of the Americas	Manhattan	30	950,000,000
555 California Street	San Francisco	30	589,000,000
Starrett City / Spring Creek Towers	Brooklyn	4	410,000,000

Other:

An internal Trump Organization corporate loan, which Mr. Trump says is worth more than $50 million.

Sources: RedVision Systems, Securities and Exchange Commission, New York Times, Bloomberg data, Trump Organization.

The New York Times compiled these debt estimates using bank documents, public filings and through interviews with the Trump Organization and people familiar with the debt who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak on the record about it.

The bulk of these liabilities appear to consist of mortgages maturing between 2016 and 2029.

The Washington Post, 16 September 2016:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection records, compiled by ImportGenius.com since 2007, give us a look at what has been imported by many of the businesses that are owned by Trump or use his name via licensing deals.

Trump has imported from the countries coloured red and many of the products bearing Donald Trump’s name appear to come from low-wage countries in East Asia.

Vodka

Trump licensed his name to the Israeli vodka after a 2011 legal battle. Unlike the original Trump vodka made in Holland, the new version was popular as one of the few liquors that’s kosher for Passover.

Barware

Made by a crystal company in a small town in Slovenia, its first entry into the U.S. market.

Ties

Made in countries such as China and sold on Amazon.com in nearly 200 patterns and sizes.

Mirrors

Made in China.

Accessories

Including cuff links, belts and eyeglasses made in China and other countries.

Fragrance

Trump’s cologne has been manufactured in and out of the United States.

Clothing

Trump makes his clothing line abroad. The manufacturers are generally scattered throughout East Asia and Central America.

Chandeliers and lamps

Some of these products retail for more than $4,000. Made in China.

Furniture

Trump Home sells furniture to consumers made in Germany and Turkey, but his own hotels often get furniture from massive distributors such as the multinational IHS Global Alliance.

For a barrister Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is surprisingly imprecise with words

For a barrister Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is surprisingly imprecise with words so often, one has to suspect that this is a deliberate ploy.

This was Prime Minister Turnbull in The Guardian on 10 November 2016:

Malcolm Turnbull has signalled Australia will not seek to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement even if the US president-elect, Donald Trump, follows through on his threat to cancel the emissions reductions commitments made by Barack Obama last December.

Turnbull on Thursday confirmed Australia had ratified the Paris agreement despite domestic opposition from the One Nation party, a critical Senate bloc for the government, and persistent climate change scepticism roiling within Coalition ranks…..

“My government is committed to [the Paris agreement]. We have ratified it,” he said.

This was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website that same day – clearly showing that although Australia had signed the Paris Agreement there are as yet no instruments of “ratification, acceptance or approval.”:

Paris Agreement - Status of Ratification

This is borne out by the following media release stating a future intent only:

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Inquiry into Paris Agreement and the Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol

Issue date: Monday, 7 November 2016

PARIS AGREEMENT TO BE RATIFIED

7 NOVEMBER, 2016

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has today recommended that Australia ratify the Paris Agreement.

Committee Chair, the Hon Stuart Robert MP, says that the Agreement has received overwhelming support both internationally and here in Australia.

“The Paris Agreement has been welcomed as a positive step forward on an issue that is of global concern.”

“Although Australia faces challenges as we transition to a low-carbon economy, there are also many opportunities. We have expertise in responding to extreme weather events which will be in demand worldwide. We also have a rich supply of the mineral resources needed for the manufacture and development of renewable technology. And, of course, we have abundant renewable power resources with our sun, wind and hydro power.”

The Paris Agreement was adopted on 12 December 2015 by 192 countries. It opened for signatures in New York on 22 April 2016, and received the required signatures from 55 countries covering 55 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions on 5 October 2016. The agreement came into force on 4 November 2016.

The aim of the Paris Agreement is to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C and to attempt to limit the increase to 1.5°C. Australia’s commitment is to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels of greenhouse emissions by 2030.

In fact Malcolm Turnbull has left himself enough wriggle room to quietly delay or avoid this ratification indicating Australia’s consent to be bound by the Paris Agreement if the influential right wing nut jobs in the Liberal and National parties further threaten his position as prime minister.

The Productivity Commission states what those with even a modicum of intelligence knew instinctively

Apparently the Australian Government is going to learn the hard way that modern free-trade agreements rarely provide low manufacturing-high primary production & natural resource extraction economies such as ours with the anticipated level of additional income from international trade.

The Guardian, 25 July 2016:

A key economic policy adviser to the federal government has said the Trans-Pacific Partnership has provisions of “questionable benefit” – including an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause allowing foreign corporations to sue the Australian government if they think the government has introduced or changed laws that hurt their commercial interests.

The Productivity Commission made the comment in its annual trade and assistance review, released on Monday. The review quantifies the level of assistance governments give to Australian industry and this year criticises regional adjustment programs that have followed the exit of the carmakers, and also the Turnbull government’s big defence procurement spend rolled out in the countdown to the recent federal election.

On the TPP the commission says it is uncertain whether the US will sign the controversial pact before the presidential election in November 2016. While noting that, the commission says the TPP contains provisions of questionable benefit. “These include term of copyright and the investor state dispute settlement elements.”

The commissioner, Paul Lindwall, warned the success in defending a recent landmark ISDS case relating to tobacco plain packaging entailed reported legal costs of about $50m.

The tobacco giant Philip Morris used an ISDS provision in the Hong Kong-Australia bilateral investment treaty, signed in 1993, in an effort to sue the Australian government over the plain packaging laws implemented by the Gillard government in 2012. The case dragged on for years before an international tribunal ruled in Australia’s favour, saying Philip Morris Asia’s claim was an abuse of process.

“As it was resolved on a technicality, and costs are apparently yet to be recovered, this success should not be taken as an indication that ISDS is essentially harmless,” Lindwall said Monday…..

Australian Productivity Commission Trade & Assistance Review 2014-15 here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 January 2016:

Australia stands to gain almost nothing from the mega trade deal sealed with 11 other nations including United States, Japan, and Singapore, the first comprehensive economic analysis finds.

Prepared by staff from the World Bank, the study says the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership would boost Australia's economy by just 0.7 per cent by the year 2030.

The annual boost to growth would be less than one half of one 10th of 1 per cent…..

World Bank graphs: Trans-Pacific Partnership

According to The Age economics editor Peter Martin, the three North Asia free-trade agreements (with China, Japan and the Republic of Korea) combined are only expected to increase total Australian exports by 0.5 per cent and local employment by less than one-half of one-tenth of 1 per cent by 2035. The agreements will boost imports into Australia from these countries by est. 2.5 per cent, sending Australia’s trade balance backwards.

NOTE: At the dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives on Monday, 9 May 2016 the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties ceased to exist.  Any inquiries that were not completed have lapsed and submissions cannot be received.

Yamba Mega Port: nothing to see here, move along

This is the ‘back of the envelope’ mapping done by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd for its proposed plan to construct an industrial port on 27.2 per cent of the entire Clarence River Estuary. Neat, tidy and full of unnaturally straight lines.

When asked about impacts on the environment the proposed industrialisation of the Port of Yamba would cause, the spokespeople for Australian Infrastructure Developments usually only have two things to say.

Firstly they point out that the initial environmental advice (which no-one outside the company appears to have sighted) gives the all clear – especially with regard to seagrass beds which supposedly do not exist in the channels to be dredged under this plan.

Secondly they say the Environmental Impact Statement which will have to be produced before they can move forward will be the company’s guideline for development.

In recent weeks there has been a third claim and that is that the company will cut another “entrance” on the north side of the river mouth so that Dirragun reef can lie undisturbed.

We are told there’s nothing for Lower Clarence communities to worry about at all.

But what do people actually living in the Clarence Estuary know about their river?

Well, firstly locals know that there are sea grass beds along the route the large cargo vessels will take back and forth from the four proposed terminals and, that the seagrass beds from the western end of Goodwood Island down the channel leading to the container terminal will in all likelihood be destroyed by the company’s deep channel dredging. 

They are also aware of the degree of mangrove loss likely to occur and, the saltmarsh that will be eliminated during construction along with roosting & feeding habitat of migratory birds protected under the internationally recognised Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), Australia-China Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and Republic of Korea–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA).

These three agreements oblige the governments concerned; to take appropriate measures to preserve and enhance the environment of listed migratory species, including the establishment of sanctuaries.

Living as they do in a richly biodiverse region, locals are well aware that the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act also provides for protection of migratory species as a matter of National Environmental Significance.

[Clarence River County Council, Clarence Estuary Management Plan, 2006]

Click on images to enlarge

In fact locals know full well that Des Euen and his backers would have to play merry hell with estuarine and intertidal areas of a wetlands system that eight years ago the NSW Department of Environment was recommending should be placed on the National Reserve System [Clarence Lowlands Wetland Conservation Assessment, December 2008].

Secondly, locals are aware that any genuine Environmental Impact Statement would point to all these risks and more.

Thirdly, there is the puzzling matter of the proposed new harbour entrance which has surfaced.

As anyone can see on the snapshot of part of the NSW Roads and Maritime Services coastal boating map (below), the north side of the harbour mouth is already listed as the safe route for shipping to enter the estuary – the approach leads are clearly marked.

Click on image to enlarge

So where is this new entrance to be cut? Some or all of the 1,280m north breakwater wall built between 1952-1968 under the Clarence Harbour Works Act would have to be removed – and therein lies the rub.

Prior to construction of the entrance works floods caused significant changes to the shape of the river entrance and the location of navigable channels (Soros Longworth & McKenzie 1978) and the partial or complete removal of one or both of these walls is likely to see sand build up in the river between Iluka and Hickey Island as it did in the mid-1800s and/or further inside the smooth water limit of the main channel. Maintenance dredging may have to be an annual event, rather than a probable bi-annual event to keep the proposed new port navigable.

I won’t even go near the loss of a measure of protection in heavy seas and storms for all boats seeking harbour – the evidence of our own eyes during this year’s east coast lows are enough to give most of the population of Yamba and Iluka a fair idea of what to expect.

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's cost cutting is causing problems in Iraq?

On 31 December 2015 The Australian reported on Unity Resources Group, originally registered in Australia by co-founders former special forces commander Gordon Conroy and former army reservists Martin Simich but now apparently incorporated in Dubai, and what appears to be the flow-on effect of cost-cutting by the Dept. of Foreign Affairs:

The Australian has confirmed that up to 40 Australian protection specialists will be flown out of Iraq tomorrow after accusing their employer, Dubai-based Unity Resources Group, of risking lives by scrimping on arms and protective equipment, bypassing detailed security checks and providing inferior medical support and insurance cover.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has recently awarded URG a new five-year contract, worth nearly $51 million, to provide personal protection for embassy staff from Friday until the end of 2020. Tender documents show the new contract is barely half the $101m URG was paid to provide security for the five years from January 1, 2011 to today.

It is understood the majority of personnel who will leave refused to sign the new work contracts in protest, while at least three others who signalled they would be prepared to sign on again, but were known by management to have complained about conditions, have been told their positions will be filled.

Staffers who remain on the ground in Baghdad are becoming increasingly anxious and do not believe that URG will be able to follow the security protocols required by the DFAT contract in the short time remaining.

Sources claim the limited time to recruit the new protection specialists does not leave enough time to conduct proper background checks, including medical and psychological screening.

They also fear the new recruits will lack sufficient training in the protection of a diplomatic post in areas such as weapons handling and close personal protection.

"January 1st will bring in a swath of inexperience and risk at a time when Baghdad is going through chaotic and unpredictable change," one senior protection officer said. "URG HQ and local project managers' rushed intent of getting bums on seats at any cost to have the numbers for January 1 will result in deadly consequences. They will not have the right people to deliver the high-quality protection the Australian embassy staff in Baghdad rely on." URG, which was founded by former Australian special forces commander Gordon Conroy, declined to respond to detailed questions from The Australian.

DFAT responded to detailed questions by saying its longstanding practice was not to comment on security arrangements at its overseas missions. Sources in the department disputed the claim that URG was short 40 workers but would not comment on the concerns raised by URG staff.

"The Australian government places the highest priority on the safety of all its personnel, especially those in high-threat locations such as Kabul and Baghdad," a DFAT official said.

This quasi-military company has a somewhat chequered past, with the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries in 2008 corresponding with the Australian Government over some of the company's actions and whose private military personnel allegedly shot and killed 72 year-old Australian resident Professor Kays Juma and Armenian civilians Mary Awanis and Genevia Antranick, as well as seriously wounding an unidentified man , in Iraq in 2006-2007. Additionally, this company was accused of ignoring risk factors which led to the 2008 killing of U.S. aid worker Stephen Vance in Peshawar, Pakistan.

What the international legal system is hearing about Abbott's Australia

The West Australian 23 March 2015:

One of the nation's senior barristers, Julian Burnside, has started a campaign to convince the International Criminal Court to investigate Prime Minister Tony Abbott and former immigration minister Scott Morrison for crimes against humanity committed on refugees in offshore detention centres.

Mr Burnside, a Melbourne QC, told a Perth audience at the weekend he was trying to recruit high-profile international lawyers, including Amal Clooney, to conduct the investigation.

"If we got Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and a couple of others in the dock at The Hague, the Nuremberg Defence ("I was only following orders") wouldn't work," Mr Burnside told a sold-out auditorium at the University of WA.

"I'm working on a plan to persuade the ICC to investigate the things that we are concerned about.

"I think the fact that an investigation was happening would have a real, chilling effect on their conduct.

"I'm trying to recruit (leading British barrister) Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Clooney."…..

ANDREW WILKIE Independent MP For Denison, media release 19 March 2015:

UN ADDS WEIGHT TO CASE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AT THE HAGUE

The Independent Member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, and eminent human rights lawyer Greg Barns will be available to discuss the most recent correspondence with the International Criminal Court in regard to Australia’s non-compliance with the Rome Statute and crimes against humanity against asylum seekers.

In essence Mr Wilkie, in cooperation with Mr Barns, has drawn the Prosecutor’s attention to the damning findings in this month’s United Nations Report of the Special Rapporteur, Juan Méndez, on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  He has also highlighted that the Prime Minster and his Cabinet have also repeatedly rejected the findings by the UN Human Rights Committee that the continued detention of refugees subject to adverse security assessments constitutes arbitrary detention.

Extracts of Mr Wilkie’s letter

           

``I wish to draw your attention to the findings contained in the United Nations Report of the Special Rapporteur, Juan Méndez, on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Report was released in Geneva by the Human Rights Council on 6 March 2015.

``In particular I respectfully draw the attention of the Office of the Prosecutor to the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur about the ongoing detention of 203 Sri Lankan asylum seekers and their incommunicado detention. I also note the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions about the impact of legislation drafted and introduced in the Australian Parliament by the members of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Tony Abbott. The Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 and the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014 are now Australian law.

``The Special Rapporteur concludes that the above legislation violates the rights of a group of persons, namely asylum seekers and migrants, to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

``I would also like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the Prime Minister’s response to this Report. In a public statement he said that “Australians are sick of being lectured by the United Nations, particularly given that we have stopped the boats and by stopping the boats we have ended the deaths at sea”.

``It is respectfully submitted that the Prime Minister’s comments in relation to the Report indicate a state of mind that is, at the very least, reckless as to whether or not breaches of the Rome Statute are occurring as a consequence of his and the Cabinet’s policies. The issue of intent is of course one for your office.

``The Prime Minster and his Cabinet have also repeatedly rejected the findings by the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the continued detention of refugees subject to adverse security assessments constitutes arbitrary detention.

``For instance recently their government failed to comply with, and missed by almost a year the 180-day deadline to respond, the Committee’s July 2013 ruling regarding more than 30 recognised refugees. These people were subject to indefinite detention without trial and the Committee recommended they be released and compensated.’’

Background

In October last year Mr Wilkie, in cooperation with Mr Barns, requested the Prosecutor at the ICC initiate an investigation in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Rome Statute.

Article 7 of the Rome Statute defines ‘crimes against humanity’ to mean acts such as deportation, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, and torture and other similar acts that are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.  Actions such as forced transfers to other countries, detention without trial, detention of children and conditions of detention clearly constitute breaches of Article 7.

``The actions of the Prime Minister and members of his Government against asylum seekers are criminal,’’ Mr Wilkie said.

Last month, Mr Wilkie provided the Prosecutor with a comprehensive brief on this matter.  The Office of the Prosecutor has replied that it is analysing the situation to decide if there is reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation.

A copy of the letter is attached.Andrew_Wilkie_MP_to_ICC_Prosecutor_19_Mar_2015.pdf

Communiqué for the Office of the Prosecutor regarding Mr Andrew Wilkie MP’s application relating to crimes...

'Superman' Abbott and his international affairs 'skills'

On 2 March 2012 leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission release a statement:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 02, 2014

G-7 Leaders Statement

We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission, join together today to condemn the Russian Federation’s clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in contravention of Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter and its 1997 basing agreement with Ukraine.  We call on Russia to address any ongoing security or human rights concerns that it has with Ukraine through direct negotiations, and/or via international observation or mediation under the auspices of the UN or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.  We stand ready to assist with these efforts.

We also call on all parties concerned to behave with the greatest extent of self-restraint and responsibility, and to decrease the tensions.

We note that Russia’s actions in Ukraine also contravene the principles and values on which the G-7 and the G-8 operate.  As such, we have decided for the time being to suspend our participation in activities associated with the preparation of the scheduled G-8 Summit in Sochi in June, until the environment comes back where the G-8 is able to have meaningful discussion.

We are united in supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and its right to choose its own future.  We commit ourselves to support Ukraine in its efforts to restore unity, stability, and political and economic health to the country.  To that end, we will support Ukraine’s work with the International Monetary Fund to negotiate a new program and to implement needed reforms.  IMF support will be critical in unlocking additional assistance from the World Bank, other international financial institutions, the EU, and bilateral sources.

Australian Prime Minister Abbott has still not issued a formal statement. Instead on 3 March 2014 the Russian Ambassador was summoned to a meeting with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary.  

Background

Andrew Bolt having a friendly chat with 'Superman' about the Ukraine situation on 2 March 2014

Andrew Bolt having a friendly chat with 'Superman' about the Ukraine situation on 2 March 2014

U.S. President Obama telephones Russia’s President Putin on 1 March 2014 and issues an official statement of which the following is an excerpt:

President Obama spoke for 90 minutes this afternoon with President Putin of Russia about the situation in Ukraine. President Obama expressed his deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law, including Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter, and of its 1997 military basing agreement with Ukraine, and which is inconsistent with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the Helsinki Final Act. The United States condemns Russia’s military intervention into Ukrainian territory.

The United States calls on Russia to de-escalate tensions by withdrawing its forces back to bases in Crimea and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine. We have consistently said that we recognize Russia’s deep historic and cultural ties to Ukraine and the need to protect the rights of ethnic Russian and minority populations within Ukraine.  The Ukrainian government has made clear its commitment to protect the rights of all Ukrainians and to abide by Ukraine’s international commitments, and we will continue to urge them to do so.

President Obama told President Putin that, if Russia has concerns about the treatment of ethnic Russian and minority populations in Ukraine, the appropriate way to address them is peacefully through direct engagement with the government of Ukraine and through the dispatch of international observers under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  As a member of both organizations, Russia would be able to participate. President Obama urged an immediate effort to initiate a dialogue between Russia and the Ukrainian government, with international facilitation, as appropriate. The United States is prepared to participate.

President Obama made clear that Russia’s continued violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would negatively impact Russia’s standing in the international community. In the coming hours and days, the United States will urgently consult with allies and partners in the UN Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and with the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum. The United States will suspend upcoming participation in preparatory meetings for the G-8. Going forward, Russia’s continued violation of international law will lead to greater political and economic isolation.....

Australian Prime Minister Abbott does not telephone Russia’s President Putin and does not issue an official statement. Instead he answers a few questions in a televised interview with Andrew Bolt on 2 March 2014 (which he then posts on www.pm.gov.au) in which he opines:

Look, I don’t want to offer a running commentary on what’s happening on the ground, just to say Andrew, that this is very, very concerning and I think that every Australian – I think people right around the world – will be thinking right now: hands off the Ukraine. This is not the kind of action of a friend and neighbour and really, Russia should back off.

Bolt goes on to ask:

Are you disappointed with President Obama’s weak response? Your response just then was ten times stronger than that rubbish that we just heard.

Arrant nonsense from an Andrew Bolt apparently intent on recasting Tony Abbott in the superman mold.

It’s been done before and at least then drew a laugh or two.......

loon pond

In which Australian PM Tony Abbott realises how many times he embarrassed himself and prepares excuses for non-attendance at future Davos forums

AFTER a flying three-day visit to the World Economic Forum in the Swiss Alps, Tony Abbott believes the Prime Minister of Australia should attend such conferences but not all of them and not every year. As the chair of the G20 this year, the world leaders' premier economic forum, the Prime Minister attended the World Economic Forum for three days with 2500 delegates, 40 world leaders and scores of chief executives for the world's biggest corporations. [The Australian, Dennis Shanahan In Davos, 25 January 2014]

Abbott reveals his grasp of international affairs

Video evidence of Abbott's poor sense of geography: http://youtu.be/o5QWqmrh47E

This is what happens when you put a right-wing political ideologue and an army general in charge of sensitive naval operations

I am well aware that Royal Australian Navy ship drivers can be very gung-ho, but I also know that in the past they were trained up to be accurate navigators and better officers than the type of men who would deliberately cause international incidents in peace time at the behest of federal politicians.

So what has happened to the professional discipline and ethical perspective of senior naval officers and ships' captains since the Abbott Government came to power?

Review of positioning of vessels engaged in Operation Sovereign Borders

Joint media release

21-01-2014 –

The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) and the Australian Defence Force have commenced a joint review into Australian vessels which entered Indonesian waters contrary to Australian Government policy, during operations conducted in association with Operation Sovereign Borders.

The review was announced by Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, and Commander Joint Agency Task Force Lieutenant General Angus Campbell DSC, AM, on Friday 17 January 2014. The review will be co-chaired by senior officers from the ACBPS and the Australian Defence Force.

ACBPS and Defence acknowledge the seriousness of this matter and the urgency required as a consequence of the importance of our relationship with Indonesia.

The joint review will focus on the circumstances leading to the entry of Australian vessels into Indonesian waters. Specifically, the review will assess the sequence of events and cause of Australian vessels entering into Indonesian waters in connection with Operation Sovereign Borders.

The joint review will identify any potential procedural weaknesses or deficiencies in maritime operations and make recommendations to ensure that any immediate operational policy or procedure issues are highlighted and rectified promptly.

ACBPS and Defence expect to complete the report in the coming weeks. At that time, the ACBPS Chief Executive Officer and Chief of the Defence Force will consider release of the review’s findings.

Media contact:

Customs and Border Protection Media (02) 6275 6793

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

Note:

The review’s Terms of Reference are attached.

Snapshot from the 

Terms of Reference – Review of Operation Sovereign Borders vessel positioning

Somewhat typically for a NSW North Coast Federal National Party politician, Page MP Kevin Hogan, is more concerned with medals than breaches of international law by the government of which he is a member.