While the world explodes over Donald Trump’s statements (and revised statements) from Helsinki, Australia must decide what its role is in relation to the US. After Bernard Keane’s analysis yesterday, readers offer their thoughts.
Tom Mehigan writes: Morally, Australia should have abandoned the American alliance as long ago as the Korean and other wars conducted by America in its attempts to push into Asia using the communist bogey as its cover. Crimes against humanity were carried out on an unbelievable and ruthless scale.
Yet, Australia with its fear of abandonment in this region, has closed its eyes to these atrocities and has clung even to this president whose every word is suspect. I see little chance of this changing, earning us the dubious title of the of the ever obedient lap dog. Our neighbour across the ditch has shown more strength of character.
Ralph Brading writes: The Worm and yesterday’s US and world reaction to the Helsinki press conference look and read like a case of life following art. It was essentially a re-read of the 1959 book The Manchurian Candidate and a re-run of the 1962 movie of the same name.
Serge Galitsky writes: Your remarks about Trump are almost a parody of the mainstream conventional wisdom pumped through Western media. No need to read it all, it’s much of a muchness. But I suggest you step back, draw breath and consider: if we assume all that is said against Russia is true… does it follow that Trump should not talk to him?
The conduct of foreign policy is premised on securing the best outcome in an imperfect world. It is of vital importance to all inhabitants of the world that the two countries with the capacity to extinguish life on this planet, speak to one another and seek to reduce frictions that could lead to hostility.
The conventional wisdom of the “liberal” media vilifies Putin. Because Trump does not wholeheartedly join in the vilification, they turn on him. What we are witnessing is a pretty massive tantrum by disappointed Hillary partisans clothed in the specious language of “intelligence” and “security”. The real security concern should be for our common physical security from gung-ho militarism or error or miscalculation that results in conflict. This is why I applaud the summit meeting and hope that it leads to reduced tension between Russia and the US.
Alex Anderson, a Mayo resident, writes: Simon Holmes à Court has reason to ask what Georgina Downer’s opinion on climate change is, but I fear we’ll have to wait for a statement. The easy answer is to consult the current IPA opinion pieces. Her ABC performance on recent editions of The Drum clearly indicated that she only regurgitates what is on the IPA hymn sheet, and demonstrates an inability to dialogue with other panel members. Should she be elected I fear she will be but a passive occupier of a dynastic patch of parliamentary leather.
Alice Kelly writes: Yes her behaviour is poor form as a public office candidate. She should be prepared to represent the over 60% of the population who think we should do more to mitigate climate change, and should allow all questions to be answered by herself.
But I’d like to know why the MSM, broadly, does not ask questions about climate and itself tends to avoid it. The government has turned climate into a long -winded divisive conversation about power generation affordability and reliability.
We don’t have a climate policy and there are serious climate issues Australia will find unmanageable in the future, which we should understand better now. The media should stop avoiding what should be a serious conversation now, and call to account those politicians who are inept, instead of sniping at the more obviously wrong headed candidates.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.