You will most probably hear me say this more than once - I don't understand the decisions that the current Australian government is making. My country's government.
It didn't take long for the Australian government to answer the call to send troops to the Middle East - firstly to provide aide to civilians and then to provide combat troops to engage with the "new" war on terror - the self-proclaimed Islamic State. Not long at all. Leaving aside the government's strident (and now erroneous) promise that it would only be for humanitarian aide.
But there seems to be hesitation from my government about providing troops and doctors to West Africa to fight/assist/contain the spread of ebola.
I am not saying that the threat and the demands of terrorism isn't worthy of attention. It certainly is. Many people are suffering, both on the ground and globally. But let's be honest - it is an ongoing battle. Cutting off one cell will not necessarily mean defeat. Religious fervour dictates that others will take up its cause. We are fooling ourselves to think that a concentrated effort will defeat extremists.
The spread of ebola, on the other hand, is different. It can be contained and eventually defeated. We have done it before. Several times. But this time, the spread has been more rapid and has leapt international borders.
Given the rapid spread of ebola and the number of deaths to date, isn't this a worthy cause for the Australian government to commit troops and doctors to? Yes, there is a risk to those who answer that call. But can we afford not to provide help?
Can someone explain to me why the self-proclaimed Islamic State is more important than the threat of ebola in the Australian government's agenda?
No comments:
Post a Comment