Australia wins UN Security Council Seat. Big deal!

Australia has a won one of the revolving temporary seats on the United Nations Security Council. The position expires after two years. The baby of dumped Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the “victory” undoubtedly has the globalist Australian Labor Party salivating.

No longer viewing Australia as a NATION made up of a PEOPLE, the ALP sold their souls to globalism long ago and they now view Australia as little more than an ECONOMY made up of a POPULATION. The ALP is a member group of the organisation Socialist International, along with many other Labour, Socialist and Communist political groups throughout the world. Socialist International has as its slogan “Progressive politics for a fairer world”.[1] And there can be no doubt that Australia’s Labor Party is heavily committed to bringing about their vision of a “fairer world”, which to them means supporting the dominant corporate-socialist-banking structures and global institutions, such as the UN. It also means dishing out billions of Australian taxpayer dollars each year in foreign aid, keeping us committed to countless international treaties (no matter how outdated or oppressive they may be), as well as supporting various so-called “green programmes”, including a carbon dioxide tax, which will effectively steal from rich nations (like Australia) and then redistribute the money to developing countries.[2]

The government claims our UN bid cost us about $25 million. But one suspects that, with all the foreign aid money Australia dished out to Third World countries in an attempt to buy their votes, the real figure could be interpreted as being a great deal more.[3]

Given that successive governments in Australia have effectively turned us into something resembling a “Banana Republic”, with overly heavy reliance on primary industry and exporting raw materials, our leaders have developed a seeming obsession with Australia’s “international reputation”; due, no doubt, to the perceived need to curry favour with foreign countries whom we wish to export our goods to.[4]

And this seems to be a big motivating factor as to why we went hard for the UN seat – because the ALP felt it would raise our “international profile”. And to them, that’s incredibly important. Like the Coalition, the ALP has very much a “rip it up and ship it out” mentality when it comes to the Australian economy. (There’s no Plan B. And the Coalition is no better in this regard). And of course our exports have been under more pressure in recent times with the high Australian dollar, which the government has done nothing to address (preferring instead to leave the value of our currency to the mercy of international currency markets, no matter how many Australian businesses go broke or how many workers get laid off).

In the very same week that Australia won the UN seat, Prime Minister Julia Gillard was visiting India, desperately trying to curry favour with the Indians, resorting to such sheer groveling tactics as rewarding champion Indian cricketer Sachin Tendulkar with an Order of Australia, as well as agreeing to supply India with uranium, despite safety concerns about India’s nuclear reactors, and despite India being a non-signatory to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[5][6]

The ALP of old would be rolling in their graves, but not the current ALP powerbrokers desperate for more export dollars, and quite prepared to compromise anything else. Perhaps rather symbolically, Prime Minister Gillard had a well-publicised mishap whilst in India, when she tripped over and fell flat on her face.

Australia winning a UN seat is also being seen as a victory for Foreign Minister Bob Carr. Carr has quite possibly earned himself the title of Australia’s worst ever Foreign Minister in his short time in the position, after being swept into the Senate courtesy of the cronyism inherent in the ALP’s selection processes.[7]

Apparently a keen student of foreign affairs, Carr had originally criticised NATO’s interference in the civil conflict in Libya. But when it looked like he might be fast-tracked into the role of Foreign Minister, Carr thought he’d better toe the line, as the ALP were giving strong moral and diplomatic support to NATO’s ruthless bombing of that sovereign country. So Carr, keen to show he would be a good little lapdog of the Americans (i.e. the US government), NATO and the global financiers who wanted Colonel Gaddafi’s government replaced, quickly changed his mind.[8]

Although the media portrayed the “Arab Spring” as though it was a bunch of spontaneous “democracy” uprisings driven by internet political activism, in reality, there was more than a little subversive involvement and careful strategic planning from Western intelligence networks working with opposition movements and “alternative governments”. Some rich and powerful people had decided there needed to be change in the Middle East, and so long-time Arab leaders such as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, who once enjoyed strong American support, were effectively thrown to the wolves.[9]

And many of the so-called “democracy” activists, instead turned out to be hard-line Sunni Islamists, who were really more interested in implementing Islamic Sha’riah Law in those newly “liberated” countries. The goal of bringing about a Sunni Islamic Caliphate was in many minds.

What was the West’s motivation behind bringing about the “Arab Spring”? Well, there was probably a few. Sections of the Islamic world were the last holdouts against the private central banking establishments that dominate the rest of the world. By contrast, the Libyan central bank was instead actually owned by the Libyan people. And when Libyan leader Gaddafi earnestly suggested creating a new gold-backed trans-African currency (the Dinah) to rival the US Dollar, the powers-that-be in the West were having none of it.[10]

Gaddafi was already causing great concern to the Americans, because of his closeness to China, who already had a growing involvement in helping develop African economies. Libya has the largest oil industry in Africa, with massive reserves in the ground. But most of the world’s oil is traded in US Dollars, which benefits the Americans because it means more countries want their currency. And that means they want trade with the USA. And so it became important to long-term American strategic interests of maintaining their global dominance. Or that is how the Neo-Conservative “hawks” who dominate American foreign policy saw matters.

The Western bankers, oil barons and giant corporations wanted Libya’s oil and to thwart any Chinese or any independent ambitions in Africa. Colonialism was virtually rearing its head again, as the West wanted the developing African continent under Western corporate, not Chinese, influence.[11]

And so Gaddafi and his government had to go. And to achieve this, the Western power-mongers were quite prepared to “do a deal with the devil”, so to speak. Sunni Muslim Jihadists, long-time enemies of Gaddafi’s secular Libyan government, suddenly became an ally of the West in the Libyan conflict. With an utterly compliant Western media cheering them on, Libya’s rebels became the perfect willing vehicle to do the dirty work in the West’s proxy war, and amongst them was even Al Qaeda, sworn enemy of the West (apparently). It’s clear the American Neo-Conservatives are enemies of radical Islam – when it suits them, and they will be friends of radical Islam – when it suits them.

Meanwhile in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Sunni political movement whom the Americans had obviously also cut a deal with, came to power in Egypt’s elections following the ousting of Hosni Mubarak. And sure enough US Sectretary of State Hillary Clinton rushed to Egypt to demonstrate that new Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi had the trust and confidence of the USA.[12]

And lo and behold, it wasn’t long before Egypt asked for a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, which in turn would “accompany Egypt in making economic reforms”. President Morsi assured Islamic conservatives that the loan request would of course be compatible with Islamic banking principles.[13] No doctrinal concerns about the practice of usury there. Now fancy that?

But sure enough, it wasn’t long before Egypt’s diehard Islamic conservatives would be celebrating as it was announced that the country’s new constitution would be based upon Islamic Shar’iah Law.[14]

Meanwhile a new conflict in a new country had emerged – Syria. Here, the “Arab Spring” had hit quite a snag. Forces opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his ruling Ba’ath Party quickly found they weren’t going to have it as easy as Libya’s rebels had done. Unlike Libya, the Syrian government had powerful friends who were prepared to hinder attempts to replace Assad’s regime. Russia and China vetoed condemnations against the Syrian regime in the United Nations and blocked any attempt to set up “No Fly Zones” or “Humanitarian Corridors” knowing that such tactics had led to the demise of Gaddafi in Libya.[15]

It emerged that Syria’s armed rebels were receiving support from US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as NATO member Turkey, and also, it was claimed, from the CIA. And it further emerged that the Free Syrian Army was actually made up of many foreign hard-line Sunni Jihadists, who desired to replace the ruling Alawite Shi’ites who dominated the Syrian regime. But the agendas and indiscriminate brutality of these foreign “rent-a-mob” Sunni Jihadists saw many of Syria’s sizeable Christian minority, as well as many moderate Sunnis, rejecting their ambitions. It turned out that the Syrian conflict wasn’t a mass uprising by Syria’s people at all, as the Western media had tried to propagate. It had become another brutal foreign proxy war, with both sides committing atrocities and both sides using civilians as shields. The better armed and professional Syrian government forces began getting the upper hand over the foreign Sunni Jihadists. With brutal fighting centred in Syria’s northern city of Aleppo, things had reached quite a stalemate.[16]

But it was obvious that, as in Libya, the Americans wanted a change of regime. As with their involvement with Libya’s opposition, behind the scenes they were heavily involved in organising a new Syrian National Council that was planned to eventually replace the Assad regime.[17]

Enter Bob Carr. Although Australia had no direct interest in any outcome in the Syrian conflict taking place on the other side of the world, Carr made it perfectly clear whose side Australia was on. The Americans wanted Assad gone and that was enough for Bob. He was going “all the way with the USA” and he was going to rattle the sabre a bit for them too.

Despite a complete lack of independent confirmation, Carr wasted no time in blaming the Houla massacre on Syrian government forces, and immediately expelled their Australian diplomat, giving him just three days to leave the country.[18][19] A month later Carr announced a new round of sanctions against the Syrian government, due to their apparent refusal to agree to a ceasefire.[20] (Undoubtedly because they were gaining the upper hand in the fighting. The West didn’t call for ceasefires when the rebels were gaining ground).

Then Carr appeared on the ABC’s “Four Corners” programme and even suggested that the assassination of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad would somehow accommodate “the desire for change” among Syrians.[21] Such a comment could even have had Carr in breach of international law for having openly incited the murder of another country’s leader.[22]

And if Carr wasn’t going to save Syrians from Assad, he was going to save the whole world from firearms, advocating some new UN treaty that was apparently going to stop the multi-billion dollar market (and black market) in small arms and ammunition.[23]

And then there was another favourite of idealistic Leftists everywhere – Carr announced that we were going to use our new UN seat to push for global nuclear disarmament, whilst at the same time ensuring Australia sold uranium to Red China and to two new customers in India and the United Arab Emirates.[24][25] Carr obviously didn’t have any concerns about more nuclear material being in the hands of Communists, Third Worlders or Middle Eastern Muslims.

And speaking of China, Carr appears to have the same simple, naive optimism that so infests the minds of globalists when it comes to that emerging powerhouse.[26]

When Opposition leader Tony Abbott warned about Chinese state-owned foreign enterprises buying into Australian companies, saying it would “rarely be in Australia’s interest”, Carr responded by saying that Abbott’s comments were “dangerously dumb”.[27]

Carr announced that Chinese money was “good for Australia” and that he happily supported Chinese majority ownership of Australia’s largest cotton farm at Queensland’s Cubbie Station.[28] But the kow-towing to China didn’t stop there. Carr proposed an annual Leader’s Summit between Canberra and Beijing.[29] And any concerns about aggressive Chinese expansion and Bob has it covered, once likening himself to the famous American diplomat Henry Kissinger.[30] Carr even touted defence cooperation between Australia and China.[31]

But Carr wasn’t the only person getting friendly with China. In August, new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi took his first official trip outside the Middle East – to China. He led a large delegation of Egyptian ministers and entrepreneurs, and the two nations agreed to a number of new economic and trade agreements.[32] It must have been quite a blow to the Americans as they were hoping the new Egyptian regime would fall under THEIR influence rather than China’s.

The Americans were undoubtedly hoping the “Arab Spring” would have borne more fruit for them. But what does the West really gain from the “Arab Spring”? Well, in a nutshell, more refugees, more battle-hardened Jihadists (some of them Western-born and who will probably return to the West one day, further radicalised), and probably an increasing resentment right throughout the Islamic world for the West having once again meddled in Middle Eastern affairs. And it most certainly doesn’t seem that Australia has gained anything from it.

What is required is an Australian foreign policy whereby we value our American alliance, but it should not mean we blindly support the Americans in every single one of their imperialistic endeavours throughout the world. If we showed the independence to rap them on the knuckles occasionally, maybe they’d be less inclined to so keenly embark on their corporate empire-building and their often murky meddling in other countries’ politics.

It’s known that a young Julia Gillard was once not so favourable towards the Americans. How times change. Successive Australian governments have acted like utter sycophants on the global stage, blindly following the Americans, eagerly playing the role of some kind of “deputy sheriff”. Bob Carr’s shameless bowing to the Americans even had one journalist suggesting he may be a Washington agent.[33] And if Labor isn’t kow-towing to the USA, then it’s kow-towing to China or India.

And treasurer Wayne Swan has time and again demonstrated what a good little lackey he is towards those great global debt merchants at the International Monetary Fund.[34] The government has demonstrated no independence at all on the global stage; instead they have been extremely keen to portray Australia as “good global citizens”. One thing’s for sure, it should be pretty obvious that the government is serving a different agenda other than that of the Australian people, whose interests it is supposed to represent.

And yet the Labor idealists really do seem to think they can solve all the world’s problems. Hence Bob Carr declared Australia winning the UN Security Council seat as a “big, juicy victory”.[35] But going on public feedback in various media outlets it was very obvious there was a very clear lack of enthusiasm for the apparent “big, juicy victory” from the general Australian public. And maybe this just shows how far out of touch the current Labor government is with the Australian people. Many Australians are instead inclined to think we should focus more on our own problems.

Perhaps the whole situation was best surmised by none other than global media baron Rupert Murdoch who tweeted on Twitter, saying “Big deal! Australia gets temporary non- veto seat on Security Council. Cost big fortune in foreign aid all over the place. No Aussies care”.[36]

Murdoch’s sentiments would no doubt be shared by many Australians. And some Australians would be very happy if we played a decidedly lesser role in the United Nations.



  1. Beesage says

    It’s not that Australia is “blindly following the Americans” as to portray a deputy sheriff image/role, it’s that we share inherent values and ideologies, which have been steadfast in all collaborations, whether it be side by side conflict against our enemies, or preferably, times of peace were we share friendship, democratic values, achievements, to name but a few, It’s by no means either I would entertain nor associate a derogatory connotation re; the latter term of reference, as it’s only one of privilege stepping up to the plate with our true mates the US of A.
    I have come to appreciate the mammoth obligations, the incomprehensible magnitude, and relentless duty to the world and it’s inhabitants bestowed by the US, now of course things aren’t always done to perfection, which by it’s very nature is an impossibility, but a good effort delivered in pertaining to the dichotomys/complexities/ambiguities this work entails within the international stratosphere, kudos! at the very least trying.. more than I can say for countries like N Korea, (don’t see them spending copious amounts on foreign aid) the vast myriad encompassing their voluntary duty is highly commendable, and to have them as world leader is a nothing short of a blessing, the very reason we have freedom, rights, and a life with wonderful choices. The proud Australian.

  2. F—-K THE UN Aussie out ASAP

  3. Well done! Very nice. I do have to ask seeing as you are certainly not a fan of Labor what are your views on the Coalition? Do you feel you have more in common with the Coalition than Labor.

    • Terrence Odgers says

      John….as we can see from our observations with other Western nation’s political parties, the main Australian political parties have drifted into the left (socialism) of politics, but even more so with the Labor type parties.

      The Lib/Nat coalition have simply pandered to whatever the Labor Party has introduced during their terms of office and have done nothing to redress the many economic and social problems that are now manifesting themselves, in fact in some areas, particularly in regard to UN policies, the coalition have simply aquiesced without giving the electorate its say on those policies which are now dividing the nation such as multiculturalism.

      Both parties have allowed the wholesale destruction of our once very productive and economy strenghtening manufacturing base to pursue globalist ambitions which are detrimental to all nations that value their sovereignty.

      From an APP perspective, the coalition has abandoned its conservative values, excluding some fiscal responsibility, which still seems to be a goal. Apart from that there is very little that the APP would share policy wise with the coalition and certainly nothing at all with what the Labor Party has now become.

  4. The best article ever produced on the PP website. Fellas, if you can keep your minds at this level of reality you can indeed become a political force in Australia. Who wrote this?

  5. You make a compelling case. I’m still bewildered by China and Russia’s veto on action in Syria. My focus across the middle east would be containing the spread of radical Islam. That poses the greatest threat to the world so it’s disappointing to see it being used to overthrow some leaders. Love the “curry favour with the Indians”. 🙂

Leave a Reply