I am noticing a danger on X, a definite shift in the algorithm towards batching posts recent and past to form misleading narratives.

Case in point is the AUKMIN joint “Statement on Australia-UK Ministerial Consultations” that was issued two days ago on December 17 2024 after a meeting with Wong and other ministers from Australia and the UK in London.

It has only been picked up in morsels, never discussed as a coherent whole. Yet, my goodness does it hold a lot that people need to hear about as I’ll unpack here.

I remain a critic of Australia’s foreign minister Penny Wong and prime minister Anthony Albanese, and UK’s foreign secretary David Lammy and prime minister Keir Starmer for their collective weakness acquiescing to Islamist extremism in their communities. That said, just look at their strange messaging here. The statement comprises 58 parts. It is their ordering that tells a deliberate geopolitical story.

It begins with a heading telling all readers that what follows are the thoughts of “Progressive Partners” in Australia and the UK. This is a Left Wing agenda. Then the fun starts:

Ukraine War—Russia Out

Part 4—A condemnation of Russia’s “full scale invasion” of- and “illegal war of aggression” in Ukraine. A “demand” that Russia withdraws its forces from “Ukraine’s internationally recognised territory”. And a “resolute” commitment to Ukraine’s armed forces.

That’s stark, and squarely anti-Trump as the world is expecting to soon discover.

Part 5—A call on China to stop supplying Russia’s war in Ukraine, and that North Korea’s involvement alongside Russia is “condemned”.

We’ve known that North Korea has been fighting with Russia for weeks. Have you heard any alarm in the news over Kim Jong Un’s military going global—in Western Europe no less? As Hezbollah was to Iran, North Korea is to China.

Lebanon—Hezbollah Forgotten

Part 6—A hope that the ceasefire in Lebanon will be a “catalyst for an end to the war in Gaza”.

No mention of Hezbollah, or Israel in that paragraph. Just a mysterious conflict, forgetting that Hezbollah had displaced 90,000 Israelis and had planned to invade Israel on an October 7 scale. No mention of the failure of UN peacekeepers who let Hezbollah prepare in their sight. No need for improvement there at all.

Gaza—Hamas Condemned and UNRWA Must Behave

Part 7—A “condemnation” of “Hamas’ [sic] horrendous attacks on 7 October 2023”. A call for “an immediate ceasefire”. And a call for the “unconditional release of all hostages” with “better protection of civilians”.

No mention in that paragraph that those hostages are Israeli and other foreign nationals.

No mention of the recent UN General Assembly Resolution that both Australia and the UK voted for omitting any call for the release of these hostages as a condition for a ceasefire. What a contradiction!

Part 8—A call that “Israel must do much more to deliver” food to Gaza. But also a call that “all parties must adhere to their obligations under international humanitarian law”.

Yet, no specific condemnation of Hamas stealing humanitarian aid, or using Gazan civilians and civilian buildings as human shields. It’s an unspoken allusion in other words.

Part 9—A call for the Knesset to remove its ban on UNRWA as “vital” with a curious specific focus on UNRWA’s “essential services in the West Bank”. Till now it’s all been Gaza.

BUT do note a vague comment that “UNRWA must continue to do all it can to ensure the highest standards of governance and accountability are met”.

This is diplomatic-speak for “we believe that UNRWA is complicit in Hamas thuggery, but we won’t say that yet”.

West Bank—A Belief in Two Peaceful States

Part 10—A focus on “settler violence committed against Palestinians in the West Bank”, but again no mention of the Palestinian civil war that has broken out there between Hamas/Islamic Jihad versus the Palestinian Authority.

This part also downplays a sentence calling for “the need for a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace”.

Why hide this sentence, why not put it up front in bold? Isn’t it the raison d’être of the past 70-odd years in the Middle East?

You see, that would then put pressure on the Albanese and Starmer governments to ban pro-Palestinian protestors calling for the destruction of Israel “from the river to the sea”. That’s not how “progressive” political parties win votes.

No Genocide by Israel—No Apartheid Either

That said, there’s correctly a complete absence of the words “genocide” and “apartheid” in this statement. And no mention of the ICC/ICJ cases against Israel either.

In fact, there’s then no condemnation (or mention) of the word “antisemitism”, a phenomenon brought by these unfounded accusations. They’re toying with the electoral shadows of 1933 which failed the Left.

Destroy Iran’s Nukes

Parts 11—”Condemned” are “Iran’s attacks on Israel”. Then the big one.

Part 12—A “determination that Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon”. Israel and the US are given the green light to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program with a wink—or is it pressure from the Trump Transition that’s come alive here?

Part 13—The “persecution of women, girls and minority groups” in Iran must “cease”. It’s regime change time too.

Syria—Assad’s Mass Graves Ignored

Part 14—Calls for an “inclusive Syrian-led and Syrian-owned” nation that’s forming with the fall of Assad.

But no call for this inclusiveness from the Muslim communities, especially hard-core Islamist immigrants, inspired by two-tier justice in Australia and the UK who are fanning the flames of intolerance against Jews, Christians and women.

And do note, no mention of the mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of bodies in Syria.

Why? Well, you can’t accuse Israel of Genocide without now accusing a Muslim state too. Hundreds of thousands killed by Assad, just as Turkey is cleansing Kurdistan in Syria’s north today.

That’s where I’ll stop. The remainder of the document, while interesting—especially in its claim of “extensive and enduring connections to Hong Kong” as a slap in the face to China—focuses on China, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific. Sadly neither Australia nor the UK understand that they lack a collective navy able to project power in the region but let’s just talk tough for now. There’s a nod to economic cooperation and climate change there too.

So, as far as global conflict goes, AUKMIN starts with Russia and ends with China. Gaza and the West Bank are sandwiched between Lebanon and Syria. And we surprisingly get, all but a declaration of war against Iran.

We of course wouldn’t hear this story on the nighty news. But X has not driven this coherent narrative either.

In all honesty, yes. This is all hot air from two relatively benign nations whose governments along with the “progressive” messes of Canada, Ireland and France are in deep existential trouble while trying to take up a position as Trump’s inauguration nears.

But we still need the full story told with analysis to follow. The world is a dangerous place. Is the West managing it correctly?

Unlike Elon Musk’s brand-pumping, X therefore, isn’t perfect. It is the most diverse, up to the minute, news channel around but it is agenda-driven no less.

Particularly as its owner will soon form part of the Trump Mk II US presidency with a US foreign policy agenda of its own.

© 2024 Adam Parker.