Julie Bishop had been the ultimate survivor — until now.

Consider this: the now former foreign minister had retained the deputy leadership of the Liberal Party since John Howard was relieved of his prime ministership way back in 2007.

Since then we have had a passing parade of prime ministers, Liberal and Labor, but only one deputy leader of the Liberal Party.

It's a remarkable achievement unmatched by any other modern federal political office bearer.

How has this small "l" Liberal prospered under very different leaders?

Part of her success may lie in the perception she would remain the loyal deputy and not threaten the throne.

But she adeptly switched horses and remained on the track at exactly the right moment. Timing is everything in politics, and she has managed her career to the second.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-26/julie-bishop-the-ultimate-survivor...

Asked Tuesday morning if she believed the Liberal Party would ever bring itself to elect a popular female leader, Julie Bishop — giving her final press conference as Australia's first female foreign minister — delivered her response with maximum steel.

"When we find one, I'm sure we will."

Bishop has a timely knack for savage one-liners.

("How does it feel to talk to a man on death row?" Bishop was asked last week by the trouble-plagued Today Show host Karl Stefanovic, in an interview about the failing fortunes of her friend and leader Malcolm Turnbull.

"Well," replied Bishop with Arctic calm, "I'm talking to you, Karl".)

But what did this one mean? Some read it as a Pollyanna-ish vote of optimism for the future.

I don't think so. 

Bishop loves to speak in code. She's an avid student (and part-time appropriator) of Madeleine Albright's legendary "pin diplomacy", in which the former secretary of state habitually wore brooches signalling her mood, or level of antagonism toward whomever she was due to meet that day.

It's no accident that Bishop was the cabinet's most enthusiastic user of emojis.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-28/julie-bishop-women-in-politics/101...

Julie Bishop’s Unmemorable Tenure as Foreign Minister

The departure of Julie Bishop as Foreign Minister is no cause for regret. Her tenure was marked by hypocrisy, selective application of international law, and blindness to geopolitical realities.

The foreign minister Julie Bishop has resigned as a minister and been replaced by the former defence minister Marise Payne. There is unlikely to be any change in Australia’s foreign policy, which under Judy Bishop’s supervision has been marked by a number of policies that are almost impossible to reconcile with her frequently pronounced commitment to “a rules based international order” or that Australia will stand up to defend “peace, liberal values and the rule of law”.

In fairness to Ms Bishop, she was not the only minister of the present government to espouse such “values”, and in doing so she was acting on behalf of and in accordance with, the policies of the various prime ministers under whom she served.

The ‘values’ ‘rules’ and ‘law’ that she espoused were essentially those of the Western powers who put the prevalent geopolitical framework in place after World War II and have endeavoured ever since to maintain a pre-eminent position, and not hesitating to threaten, sanction, overthrow the governments of, and in many cases bomb, invade and occupy those that defied their concept of whose law and whose rules should prevail.

In pursuit of those policies, chiefly led by the United States, alone or in tandem with various “coalitions” cobbled together for the purpose, Australia has been a willing and almost entirely unquestioning, “joined at the hip” ally. Ms Bishop was not the first to maintain these policies, and she almost assuredly will not be the last.

Her time as Foreign Minister (2013-2018) has seen a number of significant geopolitical events. In each of these, Ms Bishop’s response has been characterized by making judgments that owe more to her governments ideological proclivities than they do to what one might expect from a minister with a legal background: an evidence based opinion reflected in cautious policy.

Her pronouncements on the Ukraine; the shooting down of MH 17; the alleged chemical weapons used in Syria; and the farcical Skripal saga all perfectly illustrate the rush to blame Russia when the evidence is either non-existent, or, as in the Syrian examples, contradicted by independent analysis.

Again for someone professing a belief in the rule of law, her silence in the face of blatant violations of international law has been another dominant feature of her tenure. Australia is in unenviable company in the United Nations in its record of voting against or abstaining on votes critical of Israel, a serial violator of international law in the Middle East and whose treatment of the Palestinians is an enduring disgrace.

If Ms Bishop has ever made a speech or released a media statement critical of Israel’s serial violation of international law, then I must have missed it. A search of the DFAT website produces no such examples.

Ms Bishop is not silent on Yemen, but she might have been better had she done so. Her sole public utterance this year has been to blame Iran for its support of the Houthi rebels, although actual evidence of anything other than political and humanitarian support is lacking. As to Saudi Arabia’s sustained assault upon that country, armed as they are by the United States and the United Kingdom, creating an humanitarian disaster of catastrophic proportions, she is completely silent.

Criticism of those who breach international law, even allegedly, is confined to Ms Bishop’s perceived enemies, never her friends. Thus, the entirely illegal missile attack on Syria following the alleged use of chemical weapons is described as responding “forcefully” in a “calibrated, proportionate and targeted response”. Never mind articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations Charter; never mind this is before the OPCW had even commenced its investigation; and never mind the now overwhelming evidence that it was not the Syrian government that staged these events.

President Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA is only “disappointing,” and it is Iran that is “strongly urged to abide by its provisions.” Again, never mind that the independent reporting team from the IAEA had repeatedly certified that Iran was complying with its obligations.

A further blind spot is Ms Bishop’s complete lack of understanding about the major geopolitical changes occurring in what Australian politicians are fond of calling “our region.” It is now well over two years since Ms Bishop last visited China, not only the pre-eminent power in “our region,” but also Australia’s largest trading partner by a significant margin; its largest source of foreign students and foreign tourists; and the third largest foreign investor.

Huge changes are occurring, including but not limited to the BRI, the SCO, the EAEU, and the progressive transition to a non-dollar based system of global trading. The changes are not just economic. As even the Americans admit, both Russia and China now have advanced weapons systems against which they (and by extension us) have no defence.

These and other changes demand a wholly different approach to changed geopolitical realities. Ms Bishop showed no signs of the least appreciation of this. Her former Cabinet colleagues were no better, and the changes in personnel announced by the interim Prime Minister Scott Morrison give one no cause to believe that any improvement is likely to be forthcoming in the future.

Ms Bishop will be remembered as only the latest in a long line of unimaginative foreign ministers determined to adhere to the failing US empire, regardless of the cost to Australia.

Barrister at Law and geopolitical analyst. He may be contacted at [email protected]

Read from top

(note the ejection seat danger warning on the plane)

Read also: 

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/31417

by David Macilwain

As I wrote recently, in an article intended for publication on the Australian blog “Pearls and Irritations, but finally published by 21st Century Wire, the apparent retreat from Syria by Western powers has seen a resurgence in abusive criticism of the “victorious” Assad government – as well as of its allies Russia and Iran.

Far from admitting to any fault, or guilt for their seven year-long conspiracy to replace the Syrian government with a Western-friendly puppet regardless of the democratic will of Syrians, these governments, their NGOs and media partners are now entrenching their false narrative of a noble and just effort that failed to remove a brutal tyrant.

Even better informed commentators who generally oppose the US’ hegemonic attitude and duplicity, and may recognise its shared responsibility for other disastrous conflicts – in Libya or Yemen or Iraq – are still evidently in a state of delusion over the war on Syria, and the US coalition’s malevolent role in it. The immediate reason for my article was the publication on “P&I” by one such respected commentator, Professor Ramesh Thakur, of an article considering how the Syrian war could have been shortened and with less loss of life – had Western powers behaved differently.

The whole premise of his article was wrong – that so much death and destruction had been for nothing because Assad remained in power; only Libyan style mayhem would have been a worse outcome. My concern, and desire to counter Thakur’s arguments, was because an alternative viewpoint – such as is accepted by all those on Syria’s side of the divide – is completely absent from Australian media, whether mainstream or alternative.

This is despite the events of the last few months in Syria, that have seen the true nature of the “rebels” and the true extent of their foreign support network exposed, in both alternative media and in mainstream Russian and allied media networks. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also been outspoken and explicit on the criminality and culprits in these networks, albeit to a deaf target audience.

The fabrication of the “Douma Chemical Weapon attack” and the subsequent US/UK/French bombing – clearly a war crime – was perhaps the last straw for Russia’s patience in dealing  with Syria’s opponents, but it must also be seen against a background and history of US coalition crimes against Syria and the incredible catalogue of lies and false pretences that supported their covert operations.

One of the most devious and profoundly criminal of these crimes was one in which Australian forces happened to be directly involved – the joint US-Australian airforce attack on a vital Syrian Army outpost in Deir al Zour of September 2016. This happened at the height of the West’s campaign to save the Al Qaeda-linked terrorists occupying East Aleppo, and while the US constantly stalled Russia’s efforts to create humanitarian corridors so civilians could escape the siege.

The story did nevertheless make the news in Australia, though government officials naturally denied any intention to target the Syrian Army. But the claims of the US and Australian forces who launched this assault that they mistook Syrian soldiers for “illegal combatants” rang hollow, as the attack continued for over an hour despite urgent protests from Russia, killing at least 80 soldiers and completely destroying their outpost. That this facilitated the immediate takeover of the hilltop post by ISIS militants, who appeared to have been waiting and ready for the US-coalition “assistance” was never mentioned by the compulsively “patriotic” Australian media. (It should be noted however that Australian pilots and support staff may well have been innocent of the true intent of their commanders; it was reported that some questioned intelligence on the target but were ignored)

A special internal investigation by the US was a complete whitewash as predicted; the US could hardly acknowledge it intentionally targeted the SAA as part of its effort to take control of land east of the Euphrates. Had the enquiry interviewed witnesses and victims of the attack, as did Robert Fisk at the time, and Australia’s Professor Tim Anderson more recently, the US-Australian case would have been hard to sustain. Had Australian government ministers been subject to more aggressive interviewing, and reasonable suspicion they were not being honest, the question of Australia’s real role in Syria might have been asked, in Parliament and by State media.

Only weeks after that attack the US mal-intent became transparently clear when it bombed bridges over the Euphrates in Deir al Zour. This barely rated a mention in Western media, but its effect on Syrians’ thinking and on reporting in Syrian and Russian media was dramatic. I had this confirmed in May, while visiting the city of Homs and seeing its steady recovery from years under siege. Our guide there was a strong and proud woman who like so many in Syria had lost a son in the war – killed by “rebels” while he was serving in Deir al Zour. Her other two sons then joined their father in the Syrian army, committing all in the fight to save their fellow citizens from this monstrous foe.

For Hayat herself, the loss and grief had become a source of strength in her community’s battle against the violent jihadists, where they occupied part of the city only a hundred metres from her home. Following their final expulsion two years ago her job is now to educate, or re-educate, foreign visitors to Homs.

Perhaps not many of them know the story of Deir al Zour and significance of the bombing of its bridge over the Euphrates, but as one who did I couldn’t resist her gift – of a glass block with an etching of the famous bridge – or fail to feel honoured by it. She gave me too the obligation to share this story of US strategic military bastardry, a key event in Syria’s history. (the US also bombed two bridges across the Euphrates near Raqqa, before launching its campaign to take the city under its “SDF” control and relocate IS forces)

The construction by Russian engineers of a sectional temporary bridge a year after its bombing to bring aid and assistance to the besieged population of Deir al Zour, following months driving IS forces back across the desert, saw a renewed push by US and NATO forces to keep control of the Eastern Syrian Oil and Gas fields in the hands of their terrorist allies, in violation of every law of civil and military conduct. (the “liberation” of Raqqa was concluded at the same time.)

Tim Anderson visited Deir Al Zour last October, and wrote a detailed account following interviews with witnesses and victims of the US and IS assaults and occupation of the city.

Anderson’s methodical and structured work sadly counts for nothing in Australian media discourse; dismissed as an “Assad-lover” and “conspiracy-theorist”, his solid evidence can be safely ignored. To any fair minded and unprejudiced person however, what he presents is clear-cut; wittingly or unwittingly the Australian government has been assisting and cooperating with terrorist groups including Al Qaeda and Da’esh/IS, as a result of its partnership with the US and other coalition allies.

While Australia announced a formal withdrawal of its fighter jets from Syria in December – though not its air-tanker or surveillance planes, its continuing involvement and support for anti-Syrian forces seems likely. The government’s rhetoric against the Syrian government and its Russian ally is unchanged, and support for Syria’s local enemies Israel and Saudi Arabia as well as it NATO partners is as strong as ever.

Neither is the position and intention of US forces occupying NE Syria at all clear. Far from pulling back, as they have done in the South West, the spectre of ISIS is being conjured up yet again as a pretext for them to remain, with the numbers of IS fighters still on the loose suddenly boosted. The source of these claims is none other than the DIA – the same organisation that notoriously predicted and supported the “declaration of the caliphate” in 2012.

The last word on this should go to President Putin and his colleagues, who continue to try to rebuild bridges while their opponents work so hard to destroy them. As the now hopelessly compromised UN – which has worked so hard for the Syrian “Opposition” – ramps up unfounded fears of yet another humanitarian crisis in the last terrorist-infested Syrian province of Idlib, Russia has forged on with its plans to involve Europe in cooperative work in Syria. In advance of Vladimir Putin’s visit to Germany, via Austria, Russia brought a large group of foreign journalists to Aleppo to see how much has been achieved there since its liberation.

Call it a “charm offensive” – or “bridge-building” – or just “a wake-up call” for those in the West who may be reconsidering their views, Russia’s positive message contrasts sharply with the combative talk from their NATO opponents, of threats and destructive sanctions.

As I write this the leadership of Australia’s conservative governing coalition is about to change, and in what seems likely to be a hard-right direction. Where foreign affairs is concerned, one can say two things about this dramatic domestic development.

First, that the question of foreign policy has played no part whatsoever in this change, and at this point has not rated a single mention, even on critical questions like our relationship with Trump’s America. And second, that whoever leads the government and country makes little difference – they all share the same allegiances to our allies and delusions about our opponents.

And it’s no cause for complacency or resignation, or even the reassurance that Australia is a small player in world affairs. If our involvement in some of the worst crimes committed against Syria isn’t sufficient evidence, our role in the “Five Eyes” security alliance, due to meet next week in Brisbane reveals that we “punch above our weight”, – and bomb bridges like the best of them.

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/08/29/bombing-bridges-questioning-australi...

Read from top. Our Julie never understood anything about diplomacy or may be she understood too well that "the US empire is supreme" no matter what. My belief though is that she did not bother try to understand the subtle reality of what was happening ever. Though it is possible that In an act of unselfishness, she placed her own ambitions on the chopping block by becoming the third nag in a two-horsed leadership challenge — unless she thought she had a chance of winning... Her die was cast even before she entered the contest.

But we can say that by abandoning her post of "Foreign Minister", she did us a favour nonetheless. Her bland insipid calculated monotonic delivery of accusative crap was getting beyond the pale. Let's hope that Marise Payne can do a better job and start talking to the Russians like an adult. 

"Departure of Bishop leaves Australia in a foreign affairs vacuum" claimed the SMH, possibly tongue in cheek... Julie Bishop's role as "Foreign Minister" has always been as empty as a horny unicorn horn... 

The US love IS as terrorists but not as a "territorial entity". This has always been the US position including that with Bin Laden fighting the Russians (see a history lesson: WACL...). The US hate socialism (IS was on the way to become a separate "religious despotic country with socialistic tendencies) far more than terrorism. Why? Terrorism is transient while socialism is a form of government. IS had been created by the USA, as ISIS, ISIL, etc, to remove Assad and annoy Iraq, but ISIS somehow became a deluded loose cannon in itself, and "we had to intervene". This is why the USA are now protecting the remnant of IS terrorists in some part of Syria, as well as hold on to some of Syria's assets and resources — in a totally illegal manner. The US should ship out of Syria but it won't...

The arsenal of weaponry taken from the "rebels" by the Syrian Army, mostly coming from Western countries, would fill the thick catalogues of many arms dealers working hand in hand with the CIA. 

See also:

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201808301067581828-syria-uk-idlib-chemica-weapons-provocation/

The former foreign minister Julie Bishop has revealed her surprise that no West Australian federal MPs voted for her in last week’s Liberal leadership ballot and says she was caught up in an “unbelievable conflict” within the Liberal party.

Speaking about her decision to quit as foreign minister, Bishop did not deny being told she was not wanted in Scott Morrison’s new cabinet, Post Newspapers in Perth reported. “I just felt it was best I not be part of that cabinet,” she said.

Bishop, 62, did not say whether her position was offered to someone else in exchange for a vote.

“I’m sure someone else could say,” she said, adding that she got caught up in an “unbelievable conflict between the left and the right of my party”.

Bishop, who will stay in parliament on the backbench as the member for the Perth seat of Curtin, expressed surprise that none of the other 11 federal MPs from WA voted for her in the leadership vote on 24 August. She was knocked out in the first round of voting.

She quit as foreign minister two days later after five years in the job and more than a decade as the Liberals’ deputy leader.

“It surprised me,” she said. “I always believed West Australians had a responsibility to look out for the interests of this state. There certainly is a Queensland influence, no question.”

She said she believed she had the policy depth and experience for the top job, and the ability to put together a good team.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/01/unbelievable-conf...

The word "cabinet" means a "toilet" in French slang... ("a place to relieve oneself"... Verb. 1. relieve oneself - eliminate urine; "Again, the cat had made on the expensive rug" make water, micturate, pass water, pee, pee-pee, piss, spend a penny, take a leak, wee, wee-wee, urinate, piddle, puddle, make.)... Hence Morrison's dunny...

http://www.russki-mat.net/page.php?l=FrFr&a=Cabinet

Former foreign minister Julie Bishop has seemingly ended speculation about her future, indicating she will run again in her safe WA seat of Curtin at the next federal poll.

Appearing at an event in Perth today, the former deputy Liberal leader said she had made the decision after receiving "overwhelming support" from her electorate.

"I think their interests come first," Ms Bishop said.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-01/julie-bishop-runs-again-for-curtin...

Being on the back bench could be more lucrative than being unemployed, or on a MP pension... And you get all this media attention and spook all those nasty labor people. What a lot of fun the back bench is!

Julie Bishop has taken aim at the behaviour of her parliamentary colleagues saying she has witnessed "appalling" behaviour she never would have accepted while running a major law firm 20 years ago.

Speaking at a Women's Weekly awards event in Sydney she expanded on her experience of being a senior woman in the Turnbull government.

The former foreign minister said it was "not acceptable" that less than a quarter of MPs in the Liberal Party were women.

"It's not acceptable for our party to contribute to the fall in Australia's ratings from 15th in the world in terms of female parliamentary representation in 1999 to 50th today. There's a lot to be done," she said.

"Our party, in fact all parties, recognise they have a problem in attracting and maintaining women, diversity in general.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-06/julie-bishop-criticises-parliamentary-colleagues-bullying-sexism/

May be she should join the Labor party...

Meanwhile on the other side of the world, New Zealand:

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has a message for female Liberal MPs who say they have been bullied by their male colleagues — and it's not one they would necessarily like to hear.

Toughen up.

• Former PM urges women politicians to hang on and build support networks
• Says lack of money can hold female politicians back
• Is impressed by Jacinda Ardern, who is sending an 'important signal' as mother and PM

Ms Clark, who made it all the way to the top in the male-dominated world of New Zealand politics, told News Breakfast the Kiwi Parliament was a pretty rough place when she started out in 1981.

"I had to toughen up fast, because it wasn't for the faint-hearted, actually being a junior member of my party caucus … and I was seen as being on the more radical feminist end of it," she said.

"That wasn't so easy either in those terms, so you had to be very resilient.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-06/helen-clark-advises-liberal-party-...

Former foreign minister Julie Bishop has described the moment she confronted Russian President Vladimir Putin over the MH17 disaster on behalf of Tony Abbott.

Ms Bishop, during a speaking engagement at the University of New South Wales, was asked to explain how she approached the foreign leader in 2014, after a Russian missile shot down the Malaysia Airlines plane, killing nearly 300 people, including 38 Australians.

At the time, Russia had been heavily criticised for resisting to cooperate with investigations into the crash, and then-prime minister Mr Abbott had threatened to "shirtfront" Mr Putin at the upcoming G20 summit in Brisbane.

But before the leaders met at G20, Ms Bishop, then foreign minister, attended a summit of European and Asian leaders in Italy and took the opportunity to approach Mr Putin.

"I was sitting opposite President Putin. He hadn't agreed to a bilateral meeting with me, nor did I expect it because I'm a foreign minister and I wasn't his counterpart," she explained.

"But I had to speak to him about MH17 and Russia's lack of cooperation."

Ms Bishop then described the moment she noticed Mr Putin's advisers had left him, and she decided to seize the opportunity to talk to him.

Ms Bishop said the Russian President asked her to move away from the table — packed with microphones — before they commenced a robust conversation in English. 

"I delivered Australia's message to him as forcefully as I could," she recalled.

"His eyes never left my face, and they are piercing blue eyes.

"And he said: 'So this is what you call a shirtfront?' I said: 'It's more of a diplomatic buttonholing.'"

Ms Bishop said at that point, Mr Putin's advisers returned to squirrel him away from the conversation, and he immediately reverted to speaking Russian. 

At the time of the summit, Ms Bishop described the talk as "cooperative" and noted that Mr Putin had agreed to allow investigators further access to the crash site. 

Mr Abbott did go on to speak with the Russian leader at the G20 summit, by which point the suggested "shirtfront" had transformed into a "very robust discussion" instead.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-05/julie-bishop-recalls-meeting-with-...

Meanwhile, anyone who is blaming Russia for the Downing of MH17 is a complete loony... This can be proven time and time again.

Read from top.

Read also:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/28830

especially:

The former foreign minister Julie Bishop has announced she will retire from federal politics.

Ms Bishop has been on the backbench since the leadership spill last year.

She has held the Perth electorate of Curtin since 1998 and was Australia's first female foreign minister.

More to come.

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-21/julie-bishop-to-retire/10834480

Read from top.

Julie Bishop was the foreign minister who privatised foreign aid spending and now she is working for one of the biggest beneficiaries of that policy.

• Ms Bishop has joined Palladium's board, which has more than $500 million in contracts with the Department of Foreign Affairs
• Labor's Penny Wong says this is a breach of ministerial standards and has called on the PM's office to act
• Ms Bishop says she believes she is compliant with the Statement of Ministerial Standards

Labor says Ms Bishop's new job with private aid contractor Palladium is a breach of ministerial standards.

"This is a test of the Prime Minister's integrity," Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong told the ABC.

"Scott Morrison has to act."

The Prime Minister's Statement on Ministerial Standards forbids former ministers from taking "personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a minister, where that information is not generally available to the public".

Ms Wong said Ms Bishop had breached that standard.

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-02/julie-bishop-new-job-palladium-pe...

Read from top.

Julie Bishop has said serving MPs and officials should be held responsible for not meeting with former ministers.

In a submission to a Senate committee examining whether Bishop and Christopher Pyne breached ministerial standards by accepting post-retirement jobs relating to their former portfolios, the long-serving foreign minister claims the ministerial code of conduct would be “more workable and enforceable” if it shifted the onus to those still accountable to parliament.

“The onus could and arguably should be placed upon current serving officials to not hold meetings with former ministers for the period of 18 months after those ministers cease to hold office,” Bishop said.

“Current ministers and government officials are subject to ongoing scrutiny through the parliament, including question time and Senate estimates, and by the media.

“There is obvious redress available with regard to current serving ministers and officials, should they breach this protocol.”

Bishop has defended her role on the board of foreign aid firm Palladium, and says she remains in compliance with the code that prevents former ministers from lobbying or holding business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any matter for which she held ministerial responsibility.

She resigned as foreign minister in August 2018, and reminded the committee that she had not “attended any meetings of the Morrison government cabinet”.

Bishop also gives an undertaking not to take personal advantage of information to which she had access as a minister, “where that information is not generally available to the public”.

“My personal conduct since retiring from the Cabinet and the Parliament meets the requirement to be consistent with the dignity, reputation and integrity of the Parliament.”

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/26/julie-bishop-says...

Read from top...