Allan Ivarsson Author... of Amazon.com Books

Australian States and Territories are a ‘weak link’ in dealing with foreign interference.

Scroll down to content

Feature Image: The Twelve Apostles Victoria Australia

We Aussies are always watching.

Australian States and Territories are a ‘weak link’ in dealing with foreign interference.

This must change… read below…

Australian Associated Press on the 9th December 2020, posted an important subject headline, ‘Australia passes new laws that will infuriate China and make it easier to get out of bad trade deals – as expert makes chilling warning about ‘weak link’ threatening our national security.’ (i)

“A leading academic has labelled Australian states and territories a ‘weak link’ in rebuffing foreign interference and called for the establishment of state-based national security units.” (i)

“It comes after legislation permitting the Australian government to review and scrap state, territory, local council and public university deals with other nations passed federal parliament on Tuesday.” (i)

Australian National University Professor Rory Medcalf, who heads the university’s National Security College, will on Wednesday address the National Press Club, arguing states and territories are currently unprepared to tackle contemporary national security issues.” (i)

“Prof Medcalf will argue state governments lack the capacity to engage with issues such as foreign interference or international tensions, in part due to a dearth of officials with high-level security clearances.” (i)

“He will call for all Australian states and territories to establish dedicated national security units with security-vetted staffers who can handle confidential information from Australia’s national intelligence bodies.” (i)

“States and territories are where it gets real,” Prof Medcalf says. (i)

“They don’t deal with the abstractions of diplomatic talking points or strategic analysis, but the tangible day-to-day elements of national resilience and national vulnerability – critical infrastructure, frontline geography and the daily decisions and livelihoods of Australian citizens.” (i)

“Prof Medcalf says this has already occurred in the realm of terrorism, with strong relationships in place between state and federal police bodies.” (i)

“He will argue premiers and first ministers need the best possible advice on foreign interference and a greater say on Australia’s national security policy, as rival countries ‘show no respect for the niceties of federation.” (i)

“The legislation which cleared parliament on Tuesday allows the foreign minister to assess arrangements between governments or public universities and foreign governments.” (i)

(i) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9031979/Australia-passes-new-laws-INFURIATE-China.html?

Allan Ivarsson comments… Australian National University Professor Rory Medcalf, ideas need to be retained in the history books for future student education.

Medcalf is right… Australian states and territories are a ‘weak link’ in dealing with [rebuffing] foreign interference. Medcalf used the word ‘rebuffing’ which is an abrupt or ungracious manner. But I do not believe that courteous diplomatic rejection will ever be respected by ‘Communist China’. And when a deal is rejected, offered by other Nations, those who are obsessed with ‘Greed’ will often be offended by rejection. ‘Courteous Diplomacy’ does not always work. The States do need to strengthen their understanding of the survival importance of ‘National Security’ which rejects ‘Foreign Interference’ by Nations that want control of Australia. As Medcalf correctly said, “State Governments lack the capacity to engage with issues such as foreign interference or international tensions.”

True enough, we have a scarcity of State Officials with high-level security skills that have been appointed and cleared by Federal Government Security Intelligence. Given that the political appointment of State Premiers is voted in by the people in our Democratic Process, it follows that State seats can be Labor or Liberal Governments. It is doubtful at this point of time in 21st Century Australian history that any other party will ever be strong enough to lead a State Government. Hence, we cannot afford to allow a Premier State Party to make all the decisions independently of Federal Government on Security issues of National Concern, which includes dealing with serious concerns of ‘Foreign Interference’. The history of our ‘State Premiers’ have revealed that not all of them can comprehend the dangers of ‘Foreign Interference’ and several have failed to recognise the dangers of doing business with ‘Communist China’.

International Tensions is first cab on the rank, the primary responsibility of the Federal Government and the Patriotic Duty of all State Governments must always be to stand united with the decisions of Federal Government Leadership. A United Australia on National Security Issues must always stand true.

The security safety survival issues of dealing with the dangers of terrorism have already been established in strong relationships strategies between state and federal police organisations. Any strengths and weakness in this ongoing duty process, is resolved by the intelligence of these organisation interface activities. Thus, these independent active units which interface with each other should continue to stand alone and do not need to be involved with the security concerns of another independent team that specialises in dealing with ‘Foreign Interference Attempts by another Country.’ The only exception to this existence is in the event of cross-over concerns of ‘terrorism’.

I don’t believe that Australian states and territories should be given the responsibility of establishing national security units, with security-vetted staffers who can handle confidential information from Australia’s national intelligence bodies. I agree with the overview concern tabled by Medcalf, who correctly tabled a valid objective. But the strategic method needs change. We cannot trust Premier Leaders to always get it right as political seats change over the years.

A classic example is that Socialist Daniel Andrews Premier of Victoria does not have the ability to ever setup such a ‘Security Unit’ that protects his State against Foreign Interference. He ignored advice from other politicians who disagreed with his ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ agreement with ‘Communist China’, submitting to working with China.

“The rosy days of 2015 – when the Northern Territory government decided to lease the Port of Darwin to Chinese-owned company Landbridge for 99 years – now seem long gone, but such deals cannot be undone.” #

# https://allanivarsson.com/2020/12/09/communist-chinas-strategic-takeover-of-australia-is-now-under-investigation/

This ‘Port of Darwin’ decision was made void of survival common-sense even the United States President advised against this $500 million deal and the Northern Territory Government allowed the lease to be approved. We cannot ever trust all State Governments to always manage Security well, effectively, and efficiently.

For that reason, a united team of Federal Representatives one for each State, with security-vetted staffers who can handle confidential information from Australia’s national intelligence bodies, should be responsible for managing ‘State Security’ issues and objectives. Legislation by ‘Federal Law’ should be established in which it is mandatory that all State Governments do obey all Federal Security Regulations and Instructions. As part of this survival process, the Federal Government must approve all State Deals with ‘Foreign Governments’ in investment and trade, imports and export deals.

In response to the BRI Victorian Deal Questions…

“We didn’t agree with it in the first place, still don’t agree with it, and no doubt decisions on that will be made in due course,” Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg told reporters on Tuesday when asked about the Victorian deal. (i)

A.I. comments… thus more evidence, which I have read in the past, that Federal Government did not agree with State Government decision.

“Prof Medcalf says federal security briefings to state-based counterparts – such as those which occurred on the BRI – are not always taken seriously enough, often because state officials are not cleared to hear all details.” (i)

A.I. concludes… State Governments change from election to election, party to party. We cannot ever trust State Government Leaders to manage the security concerns of espionage and propaganda consistently and correctly. Such voted in leaders do not always have the necessary skills to deal with espionage concerns that is the responsibility of ASIO, ‘Australian Intelligence Security Organisation’.

And dealing with Propaganda, needs the advanced skills of Philosophers’ with ‘Philosophical Intelligence’ that have dynamic minds and are not hamstrung by fixed dogma belief system mentality.

During the early 20th Century and the early 21st Century only two people have existed who had the advanced intelligence of ‘Philosophical Intelligence’. They are Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and Allan Ivarsson (1948- ) who coined the words ‘Philosophical Intelligence’ in 2007 to describe a rare intelligence level that has existed during the last three thousand years but has never been taught to others. Allan is the first person to write about it. Albert was the first person to talk briefly about ‘Cosmic Philosophy’ as a forecast of things to come which Allan did not read until he read Einstein quotes in February 2014.

Albert Einstein described his philosophical forecast using the following words…

The religion of the future will be cosmic religion. It will transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.”

“For anyone who is pervaded with the sense of causal law in all that happens, who accepts in real earnest the assumption of causality, the idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. Neither the religion of fear nor the social-moral religion can have any hold on him.”

Allan wrote about ‘Cosmic Law’ in 1981, which evolved in his knowledge and understanding over forty years. Allan identified in 1988 that The words ‘Ancient Law’ and ‘Cosmic Law’ and ‘Immutable Law’ and ‘Causal Law’ and ‘Eternal Law’ are synonymous in meaning.

Allan began work on Albert Einstein’s forecast in 1984, it was not until 2014 that Allan read Einstein’s forecast about the work he had been doing. But Allan did not call it a religion, he called it a ‘Cosmic Philosophy’ in 1988 because it rejected fixed dogma and theology and chose dynamic open-minded thinking forever. In 2007 Allan called this ‘Cosmic Philosophy’ ‘Cosmicism’.

Allan has been a fan of Buddhism since 1970 when he first began reading about its ideas. He rejects belief in Reincarnation, and in ritual procedures, but he likes the wisdom and philosophy of Buddhism teachings.

%d bloggers like this: