Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I too join with my colleagues in speaking to this motion commemorating the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11 in 2001. In his book The New Vichy Syndrome, Theodore Dalrymple writes about the profound malaise that haunts Europe. It traces the malaise back to the two great conflicts of the last century, with their disastrous though understandable effects upon self-confidence. According to Dalrymple, Europeans no longer believe in anything other than personal economic security, an increased standard of living, shorter working hours and long vacations at exotic locations. As a result, according to the author, they are not in a frame of mind to face the challenges before them, whether that is increased Islamic penetration or economic competition from the rest of the world.

What makes Dalrymple's analysis relevant to this motion marking the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001 is his description of the mood that developed between the two great wars. Using popularly acclaimed plays of the day, he describes how intellectual reflection on the Great War changed and created a mood of disillusionment in Britain such that an indisputable orthodoxy was established. I quote:

… the very success of this revaluation of the meaning of war … must have made it very difficult for politicians, had they felt so inclined, to face up to Hitler by military means, even when the means needing to be employed were minor … so the re-evaluation of the war helped to make inevitable yet another even larger and more terrible war.

This was in Britain and France, which had succeeded in the Great War. As he concludes:

In Germany, disillusion bred a mad militarism; in Britain and France, a blind pacifism.

The consequences are well-known: the rise of the Third Reich, Chamberlain's attempted appeasement, Hitler's march into Prague, the Vichy regime in France and the horrible conflict that was the Second World War.

I mention Dalrymple's analysis as there is a possibility that a re-evaluation of the conflicts the West has been engaged in over the past decade will result in a similar mood. The portents are already visible in the analysis of some: Iraq was unnecessary, the Afghan conflict will end in a quagmire. Hence, a new pacifism could emerge, placing a brake on reasonable, proportionate and necessary responses to ongoing conflict and terror.

How we respond in the coming years will shape the events of the future. That is why this motion is not just about the events of 9-11; it is also about our future. It should not be forgotten that 10 Australians were killed on 9-11 in a war on the West that has played out in various places: London, Madrid, Bali and Mumbai amongst others. Nor should it be forgotten that at least five serious terrorist plots have been prevented by Australian authorities since 2001. Yet we hear voices that are more critical of the West's response than of the actions of Islamist terrorists and that are calling for a new pacifism. We hear complaints about the length of the West's response, as if this is simply conventional warfare, ignoring the fact that our enemies are united more by identity and less by geography.

This is not a war against Islam; it is a war against totalitarianism. Regrettably, totalitarianism has reared its ugly head in every era of history. It is not confined to any one group. Only vigilance about our values of human dignity and human freedom, the values that underlie Western civilisation, and a preparedness to confront totalitarianism will preserve us from the consequences of indifference and inaction. I join with my colleagues in sending my condolences to all the victims of those terrible attacks on 9-11.

See this speech in context