Australia should not succumb to Indonesian pressure

The placement of our embassy is a matter for Israel and Australia to decide.

It is extraordinary that Australia should entertain discussion on moving our embassy to west Jerusalem, much less offer Indonesia an answer by Christmas. Israel has been subject to assault of one kind or another — including its right to exist — since biblical times. But Jerusalem is its home and capital city, and always will be.

No country in the world experiences what they do on a daily basis, much less having to tolerate foreign nations dictate whether other foreign embassies should be allowed to move to the Israeli capital.

Moving the Australian embassy to west Jerusalem should have been done long ago. Australia is dragging its feet for the wrong reasons. It is not a very smart move by the Indonesian President to pressure Australia about this argument while trade-agreement discussions are going on. It is an unsophisticated if not a spiteful distraction. Scott Morrison should not shirk at challenging this desperate ploy by Indonesia, even if it stalls a free-trade agreement.

Mary Jardine Clarke, Spearwood, WA

Appearing to make an impulsive public proposal to move Australia’s embassy to Jerusalem, Scott Morrison has now set up Australia for a humiliating foreign policy backdown in the face of a threat from Indonesia.

Despite a trade deal that favours Indonesia as much as Australia and the millions of dollars in aid directed at that country, can Australia afford to have its foreign policy determined under these terms? Are we obliged to move the embassy to retain self-respect even if the initial intent of the announcement was political bluster?

David Lion, Bondi, NSW

Disagreement model

It has been interesting to read about the republic issue (“Royals check republic”, 15/11). It seems to me that republicans are making the same mistake they made in 1999. The push for change is coming from politicians, leftist writers and academics. This was the previous problem and it wasn’t embraced by the people.

Apart from the fact that nobody can seem to agree on the model, the people don’t trust politicians to get it right. Trust in our political institutions is at an all-time low and until such time as this improves and there is bipartisan support, any referendum is doomed to failure.

The constitutional hurdles are great. They are meant to be. It might be a feel-good idea, but it will make no difference to the lives of Australians, who have more pressing issues.

Christine Ballard, Evandale, SA

We cannot rush into a republic because as we must have serious debate about the model. The people must have a voice in it all and it must not be hijacked by party politics. If we are going to have a head of state representing us only, we have to get it right and we make the choice for ourselves, not because a distant visitor has been here for a few days rushing hither and thither. When it comes to the crunch, we can’t guarantee the British monarch will unconditionally support us.

Augusta Monro, Dural, NSW

Millions of solar panels

Stephen Miller’s letter (15/11) pointing out that it can take 4 million solar panels to replace one coal-fired power station and then asking if the solar industry is as sustainable as it claims, should be enough to raise serious doubts in government. When the huge production of carbon dioxide involved in making and installing those 4 million panels is also considered, that should be the end of the matter and reversion to coal, gas and nuclear a fait accompli.

If you doubt that will happen, then you must ask why? Why have we reached a point where facts no longer count, where what should be the preserve of science and engineering has become ideologically driven, fact-free politics, and those who fight such nonsense are deemed “deniers”?

Doug Hurst, Chapman, ACT