I said in the raison de etre of this blog that it would be in part a public record of political predictions, so given that recent articles have been more about explanation than prediction I think some crystal ball gazing is due.
 
Predictions relating to the US election:
Donald Trump will win the US presidential election.
Trump made a speech on the 13th of July, which I think will be looked back on as significant. In it he cited protection of the LGBT community as a reason for banning immigrants from countries with a history of exporting Islamic extremists. In the wake of the Orlando massacre this argument will carry weight and will cause rifts within the ‘social progressive’ ranks which had formerly been overwhelmingly in support of Hillary Clinton.
 
Predictions relating to the Australian Election:
In the coming Australian election the Nationals will steal primary votes from the Liberals and the Xenophon Party will steal votes from Labor.
Pauline Hanson will win a senate seat.
The coalition will be returned to government.

A few weeks ago I was listening to a radio program where the commentators were criticising, on geopolitical grounds, Australia’s selection of the French to build our next generation of submarines. The shortlist of builders had been narrowed down to France, Germany and Japan some months before and so all of Australia had been waiting to hear who would be the successful tenderer. A caller to the program had stated that during the Vietnam War Australia had not been able to use its Mirage fighter jets because the French had a treaty with the Vietnamese and had refused to supply parts for the French made jets to Australia if it used them in operations over Vietnam. This point brought home the importance of making sure that you buy your armaments only from countries who are likely to be on your side in foreseeable future conflicts. It really wouldn’t do to have your key weapons sabotaged when you needed them most.
 
Following this, at least one of the commentators on this radio program was arguing that we would be much better off getting our submarines from Japan, who was shaping as a key regional ally in the containment of China. Even Germany it was implied would be of more value as an ally on account of their greater heft in the world.
 
While I applaud this unnamed (by me) commentator for thinking geopolitically I would note that perhaps France is the best geopolitical choice afterall. George Friedman, one of the current doyens, of geopolitical thinking encapsulated the essence of geopolitical theory in “The Next 100 Years” by saying that a country’s options are limited by its geography and as a country’s geography changes little over time one tends to find that countries often make the same choices that they have made in the past. Hence, the most likely country to invade the UK is France, the most likely country to attack South Korea is North Korea and the most likely country to have a fight with India is Pakistan.
 
If we are applying this theory then a quick look at Australian history is instructive. The last country to attack Australian soil was Japan, and she would have been the only country if it wasn’t for the fact that in World War One the Germans attacked a telegraph station on Australia’s Cocos Islands.
 
Now, if we are looking at history as a predictor of future action, France does not come off as completely innocent, there is some evidence that the French, under Napoleon, did give orders to invade Port Jackson, it is just that the intended invasion frigates were waylaid before they got anywhere near Australia. Nonetheless, if we have to choose our ally from between Japan, Germany and France then I think the Australian government should not be too harshly criticised for preferring the country who wanted to invade Australia 200 years ago over the two who have been the only countries to actually launch attacks on Australian soil in the last 100 years.
 
If I hear you saying that ‘the future is about what is happening now and what will happen, not what happened in the past,’ then George Friedman might also suggest that as Japan is an advanced naval power with few natural resources it would still today be a more likely attacker of Australia than the large, land based, resource rich power that is China.
 
In his book “The Next 100 Years” Mr Friedman also has something to say about Japan being the most likely country to mount a serious attack on the US in the next 50 years and about how Germany could be a reluctant ally in such an enterprise. If you want to know about that though it is best to read his book yourselves.