Trump and the Australian PM—and those refugees
Today’s brouhaha du jour is about a fight Trump allegedly had over the phone with the Australian Prime Minister.
Before I get to the substance of the disagreement, let me say that I’ve come to the point where I immediately distrust all reports about Trump. This one seems extremely plausible—after all, one of my repeated concerns about the man during the entire campaign was/is his volatility, what I have referred to time and again as his tendency to be a loose cannon. This story is completely in line with the sort of thing I was talking about, and it would be disconcerting and disturbing if in fact Trump had been exhibiting that kind of behavior in a phone call with the leader of a country that is basically an ally of ours.
But I have come to the point described so well by Allahpundit in the first sentence of this piece at Hot Air:
American politics increasingly feels like a novel whose events are retold by two unreliable narrators, Trump being one and the media being the other.
I would merely change it to “Trump and his supporters and spokespeople…” rather than just “Trump.” But the sentiment is the same.
And at this point, I have come to trust the Trump forces more than I trust the MSM. That’s a sad, sad reflection on my lack of trust of the MSM. But in these skirmishes, the Trump forces have come closer to the truth in the majority of cases (so far, anyway) than the initial reports in the MSM.
Which brings us to the Australian call. First, let’s look at the WaPo headline: “”˜This was the worst call by far’: Trump badgered, bragged and abruptly ended phone call with Australian leader.”
You read that headline and you think “What a bully!” And that’s what you’re supposed to think. Now, the content of the article. It begins this way:
It should have been one of the most congenial calls for the new commander in chief ”” a conversation with the leader of Australia, one of America’s staunchest allies, at the end of a triumphant week.
Who knew that, according to the WaPo, the week had heretofore been “triumphant”? And all ruined by Trump! [emphasis mine]:
Instead, President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refugee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.
At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day ”” including Russian President Vladimir Putin ”” and that “this was the worst call by far.”
Trump’s behavior suggests that he is capable of subjecting world leaders, including close allies, to a version of the vitriol he frequently employs against political adversaries and news organizations in speeches and on Twitter.
Trump, who one day earlier had signed an executive order temporarily barring the admission of refugees, complained that he was “going to get killed” politically and accused Australia of seeking to export the “next Boston bombers.”
Trump returned to the topic late Wednesday night, writing in a message on Twitter: “Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!”
That’s it? That’s the awful thing he did? That’s the terrible badgering, that’s the vitriol, that’s the loose cannon? I agree that it’s not full of diplomatic nicety, and it’s not the sort of thing I’d like to see. But it’s nowhere near as bad as what I expected from that headline. It seems to be directed mostly against Obama for making the deal, rather than the PM.
You might even think “No wonder Trump wasn’t keen.” His predecessor committed the US to a deal that arguably runs counter to one of the most basic platforms Trump ran on. Later in the article (no doubt after a lot of people have stopped reading, having gotten what they think is the gist of it) the WaPo explains the deal and who these refugees are:
The friction with Turnbull reflected Trump’s anger over being bound by an agreement reached by the Obama administration to accept refugees from Australian detention sites even while Trump was issuing an executive order suspending such arrivals from elsewhere in the world.
The issue centers on a population of about 2,500 people who sought asylum in Australia but were diverted to facilities off that country’s coast at Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. Deplorable conditions at those sites prompted intervention from the United Nations and a pledge from the United States to accept about half of those refugees, provided they passed U.S. security screening.
Let’s pause for a moment and reflect on the fact that these are immigrants from the Muslim world that Australia has rejected. These are immigrants from the Muslim world that have been kept by Australia in camps under “deplorable conditions.” Obama said he’d take them in after they passed screening, but of course it’s that very screening that Trump has vowed to study and perhaps tighten.
More on the story:
Many of the refugees came from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Somalia, countries listed in Trump’s order temporarily barring their citizens from entry to the United States. A special provision in the Trump order allows for exceptions to honor “a preexisting international agreement,” a line that was inserted to cover the Australia deal.
Those officials reporting to the WaPo (who are they?) describe the content of the call further:
“I don’t want these people,” Trump said. He repeatedly misstated the number of refugees called for in the agreement as 2,000 rather than 1,250, and told Turnbull that it was “my intention” to honor the agreement, a phrase designed to leave the U.S. president wiggle room to back out of the deal in the future, according to a senior U.S. official.
Oh, so now Trump said it was his intention to honor the deal, but that same “official” says that’s just a weasel phrase. So Trump gets no credit even for that. I never knew the word “intention” was only a screen for its opposite.
More:
During the phone conversation Saturday, Turnbull told Trump that to honor the agreement, the United States would not have to accept all of the refugees but only to allow each through the normal vetting procedures. At that, Trump vowed to subject each refugee to “extreme vetting,” the senior U.S. official said.
Seems quite reasonable to me.
Now, let’s look at the elephant in the room that the WaPo mostly ignores: why on earth should we accept refugees that Australia won’t accept? The Guardian explains Australia’s policy:
The deal relates to 1,250 refugees held in Australia’s offshore detention camps on Nauru and Manus Island, including many from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Iraq. The refugees, some of whom are stateless, have spent years languishing in the offshore detention camps, which the United Nations has repeatedly criticised as cruel and illegal. The refugees are unable to go home, but cannot come to Australia ”“ even when their right to protection as refugees is confirmed ”“ because they travelled to Australia by boat. The vast majority of those in Australia’s offshore detention regime have been confirmed to have a valid claim to refugee status, meaning they are legally owed Australia’s protection. On Nauru, 983 of the 1,200 refugee status determinations were positive, while 217 were negative. On Manus Island, 78% of 859 the people finally assessed were found to be refugees, while 190 have been found not to have a claim for protection. The deal was also to include hundreds of refugees previously held on Manus or Nauru, who were in Australia receiving medical care, provided they had been found to be refugees…
The deal was seen as a significant win for the Turnbull government. Australia has searched in vain for a sustainable plan for refugees. For more than three years Australia has consistently maintained it will never settle asylum seekers on the Australian mainland that arrive by boat, a position that has been popular with voters and is still supported by both main parties. But the policy has led to regular reports of human rights abuses, many of them documented in the Guardian’s publication of the Nauru files, and is bitterly condemned by refugees advocates inside and outside Australia.
At the time of the US agreement, only 24 refugees had resettled in PNG, and a handful in Cambodia. The Manus detention centre had been declared illegal by the PNG supreme court, and Australia was under pressure over allegations on Nauru of sexual abuse on women and children, assaults of children, rape, widespread mental harm and epidemic rates of self-harm and suicide attempts…
On Sunday, a phone call between Turnbull and Trump took place. Turnbull maintains that, during the call, Trump committed to honouring the refugee resettlement deal. That was later confirmed by the US state department and US embassy in Canberra. But a report in the Washington Post cast the Trump-Turnbull conversation in an entirely different light.
That, my friends, is from left-leaning Guardian, and it’s significantly more informative (and more Trump-friendly) than the WaPo’s account.
So, to recap: these refugees have been held by Australia in deplorable camps for years and that country is adamantly refusing to take them in (imagine if, instead of “Australia” in that sentence, we had “the Trump administration;” the hue and cry would be deafening). Obama agreed to take them in and get Turnbull off the hot stove, with the proviso that the US would be vetting them in whatever manner the Obama administration considered adequate and appropriate. Trump expressed dissatisfaction to Turnbull about the deal Obama had made, and yet agreed to abide by it. In the meantime, he wants to vet these refugees—these refugees that Australia will not accept—more carefully than Obama might have, under new vetting rules that the Trump administration will be drawing up.
In the course of expressing this position, Trump either did or did not act angrier than the laws of diplomacy would dictate. I have no idea what really transpired, but my strong guess is that he was indeed somewhat testier than would have been diplomatically desirable. I doubt very much that this will affect either the deal or Turnbull, except perhaps to help Turnbull by positioning him as the un-Trump. In the US, the story as it’s been reported adds another layer to the furor and upset about Trump as president—as desired by the MSM.
I wish Trump wouldn’t give them any ammunition of this sort, although given his makeup it’s going to happen. And given their makeup, if it didn’t happen they would invent it. But on the substance of the disagreement, it’s Australia who should be ashamed of itself, not Trump.
Feels like Obama is still pissin on us after he has gone.
Thank you for doing the heavy lifting on sorting this out Neo.
The descriptions of abuse and mistreatment are conveniently reported in the passive tense. My guess is it’s not abuse by captors, and rather is captive on captive crime. This is going to be a fine bunch to immigrate. I suggest that the females and boys be brought over first, and the rest detained in Guantanamo for thorough vetting.
More fake news. How the hell does the WAPO know of what that phone call consisted? It’s a certainty that conversation differed from what the WAPO is reporting. Which begs the question; at what point does fake news become sedition? At what point does it become intolerable? At what point does it become suicidal for a society to continue to allow it without consequence? Free speech is not a license to engage in a campaign of maliciously deceitful, slanderous propaganda.
Which is exactly what the Left is doing.
Before I get to the substance of the disagreement, let me say that I’ve come to the point where I immediately distrust all reports about Trump.
neo: Yep.
I don’t have much sympathy for Trump but he keeps getting such a raw, dishonest deal from the media I know I have to wait a couple days for the dust to settle.
And usually Trump doesn’t look nearly as bad as the media.
Geoffrey:
John Adams tried that sedition and intolerable press approach. It was a different situation but it is generally viewed as a mistake. The solution to bad speech and bad press is generally thought to be more speech not government restriction on speech. Less than two weeks in and you can’t handle it?
By the way, Turnbull is quoted as saying; “the call ended courteously”, directly contradicting the Trump hung up on him lie.
I don’t think it is generally reported; but even though this problem had festered for years, Obama signed the
“secret” agreement after Trump was elected. Even some of Obama’s administration objected to him classifying the deal so it could not be made . Any wonder that Trump is furious?
The real problem is that Trump seems to be operating without staff support. If I have to call a client who I haven’t dealt with before, I get all the background I can from others in my firm who have dealings there. This includes an assessment of the clients internal political situation, constraints and other factors. And I’m just a little business!
There was no need for Trump to speak with most of these leaders right now. He can have staff diplomatically defer the call until he’s ready.
For a guy who’s a businessman and supposedly a media wiz, he seems awfully wet behind the ears. Staff support helps you do a good job with less effort. The President has the capability to draw on staff that is much larger than most corporate titans. Bush used it well while Obama foolishly ignored them.
Oldflyer,
And 2 days before the inauguration, Obama decided that Cuban boat refugees with one foot in America would be sent back to Cuba. Consistent refugee policies are not his thing.
“So, to recap: these refugees have been held by Australia in deplorable camps for years and that country is adamantly refusing to take them in…” TRUE
“In the meantime, he wants to vet these refugees–these refugees that Australia will not accept–more carefully than Obama might have, under new vetting rules that the Trump administration will be drawing up.” TRUE
“But on the substance of the disagreement, it’s Australia who should be ashamed of itself, not Trump.” Absolutely 100% accurate.
I live in Australia. Trump & Turnbull would never be ideological BFFs, and Trump is looking at a deal (like the UN res on Israel) cut by a predecessor who hated the USA & wanted to do all within his power to dilute US power & standing in the world. That predecessor left more than a few turds in the punchbowl & Trump is having to deal with that in the best way possible.
More fake news from WaPo…a non-story about 2 guys who have to make nice on the world stage but who have to untangle a mess that disadvantages the US because Australia refuses to address adequately the problem on its own shores.
John G: Thanks!
I do appreciate reports from on the ground.
I arrived at the same conclusion after a cursory analysis of the call; I was already aware of the issue (been keeping a moderately close watch on politics across the Anglosphere for a while now).
It seems that what’s passing for journalistic integrity is worsening quicker even than I’d thought its acceleration to the bottom would likely be.
Where did the leaks come from? Is the NSA bugging his phone? I got the impression from the article that it came from within the White House, which I find hard to believe.
So Turnbull is a “self made millionaire” former investment banker with a big ego and not above dirty politics according to Wiki, so John G. I would think they’d have much in common. Maybe too much ego on the call.
Why should any nation be expected to harbor ‘refugees’ from other nations that are failed states? Same goes for the UN. The vast majority of the nations represented at the UN are failed states when it comes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are repressive, brutal regimes, or states in chaos because of repressive and corrupt former regimes.
Not our problem, especially where majority muslim nations are concerned. I want to see the UN banned from the USA. Start a new international body composed of nations that adhere to the norms of Western Civilization.
“…President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refugee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange.”
Then later in the story
“Even in conversations marred by hostile exchanges, Trump manages to work in references to his election accomplishments. U.S. officials said that he used his calls with Turnbull and Peé±a Nieto to mention his election win or the size of the crowd at his inauguration.”
These are subtle declarations that he is emotionally unstable, sort of a Queeg-like character from The Caine Mutiny.
Expressing dissatisfaction – justified dissatisfaction – is “giving them ammunition?”
Your premise is that there are two unreliable narrators and that’s frustrating, having to sort out their competing BS narratives. How is Trump the unreliable narrator in this? There is a transcript – word for word – of what Trump said and the media’s bombastic, bumbling, unreliable, and incomplete spin of that transcript.
OM,
The media that Adams abhored were a loyal opposition. They disagreed with Adams as to means but shared loyalty to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. That is not the case with the Left, whose animus to America’s founding precepts is as deep as is ISIS’. Given that reality and given the MSM’s dominance of the information the LIVs receive, along with academia’s ongoing campaign of indoctrination, more free speech has already proven to be insufficient. Demonstrated by the voting patterns of the young. More leftist with every generation.
Thus my warning of sedition.
“This is War” (large banner held up at the Berkley riots)
Hi BrianE…
Maybe I’m reading more into your comparison between Trump & Turnbull…but it reads like a not-so-subtle insult of President Trump. You can ask questions without doing that.
ALL politicians in Australia are farther left than any US Republican. Turnbull may be from the Liberal (theoretically more conservative) party, but ideologically he’s farther left by a long shot than Trump.
So as I said, they’ll never be best buddies, but they will find a way to work together. Turnbull’s desire to stay PM demands that he do so. I believe there will be a “deal sweetener” somewhere down the track that will make taking 1200 people off Australia’s hands (that they should be dealing with here) less odious to President Trump and make the relationship look all cozy.
Why can’t these refugees be returned to their countries of origin? Don’t like the camps? Here’s your flight home.
Geoffrey:
You have conveniently ignored the concern in Adams’s time about foreign influence (the French and those supporting the revolutionaries in France). Some were not so keen on the American republic at the time. Oh and American government had just finished a real war with the British in which not all were in support of. But hey we are facing worse now so we need sedition and suppression. There were riots in the late 1960’s too, have you forgotten that too?
What a crock. You agree that the WaPo is a discredited source and yet you swallow their story hook, line, and sinker. “I wish Trump wouldn’t give them any ammunition of this sort” What sort? No matter what President Trump does or says the opposition will lie about it. The reality is you know nothing of the phone call and still manage to disparage our President. obama made this deal to sabotage President Trump. There is absolutely no reason for our President to honor it, unless he wants to put them all in Gitmo.
Thanks thanks thanks.
You so often do such great work!
I suspect many of them will NOT pass the extreme vetting — but it will be interesting to see how the Dem media present the resolutions.
Or not — if there’s not enough to use to smear Trump.
Yes, Trump supporting news is so far more accurate than Trump-haters.
Why can’t these refugees be returned to their countries of origin? Don’t like the camps? Here’s your flight home.
They have had the option to do so for some time already, they (refugees and in particular refugee advocates) are trying to use length of internment as a means to win the PR game and thus allow entry into Australia. The Australian government has offered to pay for airfares to repatriate people that want it and many have taken up the offer once getting off Manus became impossible. The die hards remain and there is a large degree of scepticism as to their actual refugee status.
One more thing that is relevant, Turnbull is such an insufferable prig that Trump did well to last for 25 minutes.
“Feels like Obama is still pissin on us after he has gone.”
This was a BS decision from day 1. Obozo didn’t do it until after the election.
I simply would refuse them, the hell with Australia and the MSM. I doubt they would add anything to our country. The MSM is so hypocritical in their actions. Here they feel for refugees that Australia refuses to take since it isn;t sure their goal is refugees or terrorism? And MSM is silent on the Cuba refugees that Mexico sent back due to Obuma’s new Cuba policy. Which group will fare better? Which group would bring better people into the country? I don’t believe anything MSM says!
Maybe I’m reading more into your comparison between Trump & Turnbull…but it reads like a not-so-subtle insult of President Trump. You can ask questions without doing that.
ALL politicians in Australia are farther left than any US Republican. Turnbull may be from the Liberal (theoretically more conservative) party, but ideologically he’s farther left by a long shot than Trump. – John Guilfoyle
There are surface comparisons to the two men- both successful businessmen before turning politician, both have large egos, both will go low to win. No, it wasn’t particularly an insult.
You are aware that Trump would never be considered conservative here. He formed a unique populist coalition that may re-define politics for some time if it works.
Yuge support from social conservatives, yet supports workplace protections for transgenders and gay marriage. His pledge to nominate someone like Scalia to the supreme court sealed the support.
Yet his protectionist, economic liberal proposals are going to be roundly fought by many folks commenting on this blog. For those to pass, he’s going to need democrat support. I happen to be someone who favored global free trade who’s come to recognize it’s failings. Trump can’t be defined in the traditional conservative-liberal continuum. Where does a populist-nationalist fit?
Wesley Young:
I can assure you that that statement of mine was not based on the WaPo report. It was based on what Trump himself and/or his own people have said or tweeted, and/or what they have described as having happened.
I have also made it crystal clear that I think the MSM would treat him the same way no matter what he said and did. However, I continue to wish he didn’t give them quite as much ammunition.
and don’t forget who else isn’t taking in refugees
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F0d%2Fa2%2F0b%2F0da20bc0c95b24db810d1b26436a313f.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fwannabacowgirl2%2Fwake-up-people%2F&docid=aEI9HhVIMeFw9M&tbnid=j__nUJm1VZulgM%3A&vet=1&w=552&h=811&bih=668&biw=1396&q=isis%20cave%20obama%20take%20us%20seriously%20cartoon&ved=0ahUKEwig5qei2fXRAhUo2oMKHS5FDA0QMwhNKCcwJw&iact=mrc&uact=8#h=811&imgrc=j__nUJm1VZulgM:&vet=1&w=552
(I only went shopping for one cartoon, but it’s kind of like stopping in at the mall for just one little thing)
PS thanks for the great analyses today (as always).
This isn’t really on topic, except insofar as Trump is always the topic, but the blog cartoon is funny, and the post a sure-fire winner in the #AlwaysTrump echo chamber.
http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/2017/01/intelligence-testy.html
“Let’s review a few fun facts. As president, B. Hussein skipped the majority of his intelligence briefings including the one immediately following the debacle in Benghazi. Barry also had nothing but foreign policy failures, and repeatedly placed the blame on his intelligence agencies.
So why should Trump – or the rest of us – invest our trust in the intelligence agencies who failed to see the rise of Isis? Who missed nuclear weapons development by Iran during our negotiations? Who were unable to connect the dots preceding Putin’s many successful aggressions – as well as those of China and North Korea.”
And this unforgettable pair as well.
/www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-l5fNjkhFDP8%2FVmdBWAFtEeI%2FAAAAAAAAPwU%2FwmNmOkhB6HY%2Fs1600%2FAllah%252BAllah%252BIn%252BFree%252B1.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com%2F2015_12_06_archive.html&docid=Ivuzav0JyOyldM&tbnid=iajyxLD1XIqWEM%3A&vet=1&w=1159&h=559&bih=420&biw=877&q=isis%20cave%20obama%20take%20us%20seriously%20cartoon&ved=0ahUKEwj8r-7z2fXRAhWm7YMKHfF4ASg4ZBAzCAIoADAA&iact=mrc&uact=8#h=559&imgrc=iajyxLD1XIqWEM:&vet=1&w=1159
Try that one again.
http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/2015/12/allah-allah-in-free.html
“Let’s face it – this administration’s system for vetting people coming into our country failed spectacularly in the case of the San Bernardino killers. As did domestic intelligence efforts intended to ferret out terrorists in our midst before they strike. And in the aftermath, Barack Obama once again bloodlessly lectured a frightened country – claiming that Islam had nothing to do with the violence, that the refugee “widows and orphans” entering our country are no more dangerous than tourists, and that the steps he’s already taking to protect us from terror (so unsuccessfully) are all that is necessary.”
Here is an interesting comment from the post I just linked to, about the hypocrisy of the Left regarding terrorist activity. I get a newsfeed about USDA actions on dangerous/deadly food recalls, and this is spot on.
Ned said…
Wow – if this were a health -related matter, such as a vector being imported in meat which ended up killing 14 people and sickening another 20, TPTB would stop the import immediately. As far as it being a constitutional issue, where in the constitution is the right to emigrate without regulation listed? I missed that part.
Another very thought-provoking comment from the above, to answer those who equate vetting Muslim immigrants with Islamophobic bigotry. It’s long, but all the context is needed for the punch-line. (emphasis added)
OpenTheDoor said…
While I agree with you to a point Stilt, in times of indecision I try and remember what my father would say.
He was a quiet thinker and when he uttered the occasional proclamation, it was usually worth listening to.
He lived through the Great Depression as a hand on a dairy farm, arising at 4 each day to milk cows and if the weather was OK in the cold, muddy fields of WI, on his hands and knees, planting onions or potatoes, 50 cents for a 10 hour day. Two wars, 6 kids and the loss of one. The only son of immigrant parents, his father was born in 1865, a war casualty with one leg. His father died before he ever hardly knew him. No other relatives of any kind other than his mother and sisters.
A self taught man, he could speak 4 languages and finish the crossword puzzle while eating breakfast, using a pen. Being a life long church goer, I never heard him utter one word against his fellow man, except once. He openly had black friends, in the South, during the ’50s, the last word I would use to describe him was racist or bigot. Just learning to read, I asked my mother what “colored” over the bubbler in Penny’s meant, bending to take a drink from it she said: “Not a damn thing!” only time I ever heard her curse.
Having been in N. Africa for 5 years, during WWII, he spoke Arabic, self taught, like all his other skills. I don’t know what he did, he never spoke of it, he had a draw full of medals and no stories to go with them.
The group of people he told me to never trust or allow near me or my loved ones? Muslims, not people from the middle east but Muslims.
He never knew any love from his father so, I never knew any overt examples of it either. His Idea of together time was me at the other end of a two man saw, cutting firewood. When I asked him why, when there was a chainsaw in the shop, he replied: “You cannot talk over a chain saw.” This was his idea of love, imparting life lessons and wisdom from the other end of a two man saw. I still have that saw, hanging over the doorway of my shop, when I need to think, still talk to the saw.
So, if you don’t mind, I’m going with his hard won wisdom and Trump’s bombast, let’s get a handle on this before inviting anymore ticking bombs into the last land of the free.
sincerely, Door
December 9, 2015 at 7:00 AM
Turnbull is actually hugely unpopular in Australia. he stabbed the sitting PM in the back to get the job. He is a leftist elitist green who somehow got the leadership of the Australian equivalent to fthe republican party – in American terms he is a RINO. So he’s unpopular with the left because he won’t or can’t deliver on progressive policies because the rest of the party won’t stand for it – but he’s hugely unpopular with the right because they know he wants to.
We’re laughing at the reaction – odds are good turnbull will be dumped by his own party within 3 months.