The Sept. 9 van bomb that killed nine Indonesians queuing to enter the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, and at least one suicide bomber, has revived fears that a potent mixture of Indonesian nationalism and Islamic extremism could ignite right on Australia's northern doorstep.
And while the tabloid newspaper driven paranoia of the 1960s, which routinely featured illustrations from Indonesian school atlases naming Australia as South Irian, or a southern province, has not quite returned, there is fear of a truck bomb in a road tunnel, or a backpack bomb attack like that in Madrid.
And as in Spain when the March 11 bombs hit Madrid commuter trains, Australia too is approaching a national election, with the pro-US conservative coalition Prime Minister John Howard being challenged by Labor opposition leader Mark Latham in polls on Oct. 9. And like Spain, Australia is going into its election with a government vowing to keep forces in Iraq and an opposition pledged to pulling them out.
What is focusing Australian minds, now, is that the organization believed behind the Sept. 9 embassy blast is not al-Qaeda nor militants from the Middle East but the very local Jemaah Islamia (JI) already blamed by Indonesia for the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings, which killed 202 people including 88 Australians, the attack on the Jakarta Marriott hotel last year and a string of bombing atrocities in Christian churches.
Translations of JI documents refer to ambitions to create an Islamic super-state in Southeast Asia incorporating parts of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and northern Australia.
And they refer to the building of networks of Islamic communities in the region, under strict Shariah law, as providing the foundations of an Islamic caliphate.
For the moment, just how much sophisticated thinking went into the planning of the Sept. 9 blast remains an open question, but the fallout does appear to have boosted the electoral chances of the Iraq withdrawalist Latham.
In March when he promised to bring home Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas he appeared to commit political suicide. Latham's Iraq withdrawal pledge was denounced as "cutting and running" by Howard and a disastrous weakening of the American alliance which underwrites the very survival of Australia in the event of a threat from Asia.
However, more recently, the political ground had begun to collapse under Howard's feet. The Age newspaper in Melbourne has discovered that of the remaining 850-strong Australian Defense Force contingent only 250 were actually in Iraq and that the government in Canberra was in fact bringing more than a third of them home well before Christmas.
And Latham has stuck to his promise of withdrawal insisting that it is in Australia's interests to shore up its regional defense capability to better combat the threat of terrorist acts occurring on its own soil rather than keeping resources in Iraq.
Just before the Jakarta Embassy attack an analyst at the independent Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Aldo Borgu, said he didn't want to "overstate" the functions of the contingent in Iraq.
"Australians aren't really playing a part in ensuring security for the Iraqi people in the short-term" he said.
"Obviously you can make the argument that our training of the Iraqi armed forces will help to guarantee their security further into the longer term, but certainly we don't play a short -term role there, beyond protecting our own embassy," he said.
But it was the embassy in Jakarta that was bombed, not the one in Baghdad.
Four days after the Jakarta attack Howard and Latham met in the only televised debate of the drawn-out campaign.
Latham denounced the attack as "the act of barbaric people who should be hit as hard as we can hit them" and argued that the invasion of Iraq had little if anything to do with terrorism and nothing to do with the perpetrators of the Bali atrocity.
Although four weeks is an eternity in terms of Australian election campaigns, Latham's emphasis on real threats close to home seems to have rocked a government already battling to maintain the credibility of its involvement all those kilometers away in Iraq.
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China