Hi. John Howard’s question and answer session after yesterday’s speech to the nation was devastating for the Prime Minister. – and the Australian people. Australians need reassurance – they were treated instead to obfuscation, confiusion, contradiction and lawyer’s games of hide and seek. I agree with our Meeja Watch man Jack Robertson that the press gallery performed well in impossible circumstances:
“After my wild spray at the media’s performance a few days ago (Two letters to the future), I just wanted to say that I thought the Australian Press was pretty impressive today at the National Press Club speech, especially Oakes, Seccombe, Tingle, McGrath, Grant and all those who tried to get specifics from the PM about our ‘reconstruction’ role and the longer-term strategic implications. I recognise what the Press is up against with this man. Thanks for a good attempt. Keep at him.”
The questions were not as tough or broad, overall, as those from the Washington press gallery at Bush’s press conference last week, but there’s good reason for that. Bush was upfront about his intentions, opening up the discussion. John Howard stonewalled on his intentions, despite the fact that it’s obvious from everything he said that we’ll go in with the Yanks no matter what happens at the UN, and cut off further discussion. This meant several questions were taken up with pressing him for an answer, and because he refused to answer most questions anyway, with asking the same question in a different way.
His performance did nothing to alter the impression that he is a lap dog to Bush – a man dancing on the spot until Bush teaches him the next move. It appears that Australia’s interests are simply not being separately addressed.
Bear in mid that this was probably Howard’s last speech to his people before announcing war, his last chance to convert a skeptical public. Maybe he’s diabolically clever – that it’s correct strategically to keep your people in the dark and hope they rush to support you when our troops are in action, because from his performance yesterday he either thinks Australians are stupid, or he doesn’t give a damn what they think.
Here are the key questions and answers, with my comments. For the full transcript, go to pm.
***
Laura Tingle, Australia Financial Review: Prime Minister, your speech today has been a fairly clear enunciation of the principle of pre-emptive strike, and I was just wondering, given how events are unfolding in Iraq, or over Iraq, what is that doctrine likely to imply for the future of the broad western alliance and the UN security system, and where does it suggest Australia goes after Iraq on other rogue states?
John Howard: Well Laura, you’ve chosen to put a particular description on it. I’m not going to adopt your description. I’ve given, I believe, a clear enunciation of why we’re adopting the policy we have. I’ve put it in context. We are living in a different world. The old view of aggression was that an army rolled across a border. The new menace and different menace arrived on the 11th of September. America has a different view, very understandably, and I think the implications of that for other liberal democracies is very real. But I’m not going to adopt yours or anybody else’s language. I choose my own. I’ve explained the reasons. I hope they are clear and compelling.
Comment: Both Mr Howard and Robert Hill have themselves used the description “preemptive strike” to describe the American’s new policy, and have argued that the doctrine constitutes self-defence in the post-September 11 world. Mr Howard has even said he’s prepared to invoke the doctrine to attack a nation in our region if he feared an imminent terrorist attack from its soil. His ‘answer’ to Laura is his way of not answering her question, by focusing on what she thought was an uncontroversial summary of his position as a lead-in to the substantive issue. By doing this, he sought to cover the fact that he would not answer a question on the minds of very many Australians. Both sides of politics have traditionally set great store in the UN as a body helping necessary to guarantee our security as a middle- ranking power. His non-answer is an insult to the Australian people, most of whom do not support an invasion of Iraq without UN sanction.
***
Mark Riley, Sydney Morning Herald: It’s clear from what you have said today that you no longer consider the prospect of this new resolution failing to be hypothetical. You’ve shared with us your view of what France and Germany’s attitudes may be in that circumstance as it relates to the military deployment. I’m wondering if you’ll now be as equally candid as George Bush has been with his people, and Tony Blair with his, and tell the Australian people whether you will send our troops into war without UN approval, or the backing of the Security Council.
John Howard: Mark, I’ll just repeat what I have said before, and the Australian people understand this – a final decision will be taken on that when all the processes at the Security Council are known. I’ve said before, and I’ll repeat it today, we seek the 18th resolution of the Security Council – it’s not the 2nd, it’s the 18th resolution of the Security Council – not because we believe as a matter of international law that it is needed. We believe it would be better politically, strategically and in terms of the united voice of the international community, if you could get another resolution. I take you back to what I said in my speech. I really do believe that if everybody got behind the sort of resolution of which I have spoken, and I acknowledge that the prospects of that now are not great, you would perhaps have a real prospect because if you had 15 nations saying you disarm or were coming after you, and you had the neighbouring Arab states saying look, the game is up, you might just get some change in Baghdad. Now if that doesn’t occur, I think the prospects for a peaceful resolution don’t appear very bright. We are positioned to participate in military action. That is self-evident. But as you will have observed from the remarks made by our men in the field, they clearly have not received any instruction as yet, and that will not be given until the Cabinet has considered the matter in the wake of the issue being resolved one way or the other, or no way, at the United Nations. That has been my position all along. I think it is the only responsible position. You never in the situation in which I am placed, you never pass up by taking a decision before you need to, the capacity to consider last-minute circumstances that may affect the type of decision you take. You never do that.
Comment: Howard, again refusing to admit that he is prepared to go in without UN sanction, is reduced to implying that Blair and Bush have been irresponsible by discussing the possibility of unilateral action with their people.
He refuses to enlighten the Australian people about why it would be “better politically, strategically and in terms of the united voice of the international community if you could get another resolution”. This refusal, of course, also allows him to avoid discussing the political and strategic downsides for Australia of going in without UN sanction. Again, he deliberately keeps the Australia people in the dark on his considered assessment of the issue of most concern to them.
***
Fran Kelly, The 7.30 Report: You said today that this judgement, Australia’s judgement, reflects the intelligence community’s professional assessment. Well, in recent days we’ve had an ONA officer quit his post, saying that ONA had given the Government advice that the more Saddam Hussein is pushed, the greater the chance of him using his weapons of mass destruction or linking up with terrorists. Will you release the ONA reports on Iraq, just as you released the ONA report on the children overboard, here in the National Press Club address 16 months ago?
Howard: Well that particular ONA report, as you know Fran, in relation that I mentioned 16 months ago, merely repeated press reports. I’m not going to release ONA assessments which, almost of all of which remain classified. What I said to you today represented their general view. As far as Mr Wilkie is concerned, I respect his right to have another view. It’s not surprising in a large public service and a reasonably large intelligence community, that you’re going to have a range of views. In the end, all of these things involve questions of judgement.
We’re not talking about proving to the, beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of a jury at the Central Criminal Court in Darlinghurst, if you’ll excuse my Sydney origins, I mean if you wait for that kind of proof, you know, its virtually Pearl Harbour. You’ve got to make judgements, and judgements are made and I have given you the judgement of the [ONA] and I’ve given you our judgement. I mean, people are saying well, you know, where is the further proof? I mean, what I am saying is you have Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, Iraq’s terrible track record, refusing to disarm, the world in effect buckles at the knees and doesnt disarm Iraq, other rogue states say, well we can do that, North Korea says knew they would give in, North Korea becomes more uncontrollable. The likelihood, as a matter of sheer logic in those circumstances, of terrorist groups getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction has got to be greater. And these are judgement calls. And I can respect the fact that somebody else has a different view. Im not going to denigrate the man because of that. I respect that.
Comment: This is a killer question. If ONA defector Andrew Wilkie is telling the truth, then Howard’s case – that we need to declare war on Iraq to avoid the nightmare of Saddam giving WMDs to terrorists – is back to front. War would produce the very nightmare Howard says he’s trying to avoid.
ONA assessments are not released to the public, but Howard made an exception to that rule under enormous pressure over the truth of his election campaign claim that asylum seekers threw their children overboard. Roll back to the last Thursday of the 2001 election campaign, when Howard was at the Press Club the day after The Australian published a page one report that it never happened. His staff then trawled for documents to back his claim, and his foreign affairs adviser came up with an ONA report, which Howard read.
I published the transcript of the pre-election Q and A in Red light questions:
Fran Kelly: Defence sources are saying today that the photos released by the Defence Minister’s office some weeks ago of the people in the water from that sinking boat were captioned when they were handed to the Government and that those captions clearly showed that the people were in the water because the boat was sinking, not because people had been thrown overboard, children had been thrown overboard. Will you now ask the Minister of Defence to release those photos with captions as originally provided by the Navy?
Howard: Well, Fran, I don’t know what defence sources you’re referring to but let me just take you through the sequence on this very quickly. The claims that were made by Mr Ruddock and Mr Reith on the Sunday, I think it would have been Sunday the 7th of October, it was just after the election was called, they were based on advice from defence sources. My own comments were based on my discussions with Mr Ruddock and Mr Reith. On the 9th of October I received an ONA report that read in part as follows: Asylum seekers wearing life-jackets jumped into the sea and children were thrown in with them. Such tactics have previously been used elsewhere, for example, by people smugglers and Iraqi asylum seekers on boats intercepted by the Italian Navy.
By referring back to Howard’s previous use of ONA to help his cause, Fran illustrated the priceless asset of corporate memory in journalism. Howard was cornered. Back in 2001, Howard represented that the ONA document was an independent assessment of the children overboard claim. That was its very purpose in his defence. In fact – as the inquiry revealed – ONA told his adviser in writing that its report was based ONLY on press reports of what the Government had claimed happened.
Either Howard knew that and misrepresented the report, or he didn’t, in which case he decided to release what he thought was a genuine ONA assessment.
To justify not releasing the ONA assessment of risk of WMD distribution to terrorists by Saddam, he was forced to admit that he had misused the ONA document on children overboard. Surely on such a vital matter – crucial to his case for war – he would release it if it contradicted Wilkie and backed him. If not, why not? Do you believe John Howard or Andrew Wilkie?
When I was railing at the calumny of the government on children overboard last year, several readers opined that there would be damage to the government in the medium term because it would corrode the governments credibility. Several other readers wrote that most people didn’t care whether Howard and co had deceived the people because they agreed with his boat people policy. For example, in For those who give two hoots, Graham Bousen wrote:
Margo, the punter does not give two hoots about this children overboard inquiry. They have been told that on other occasions children were used as pawns, so if the Government was wrong on this one, they were right on the rest. Hence the apparent forgiveness for the fibs. It really is old news that the media keeps perpetuating with its holier than thou indignant approach – have they never fudged the facts themselves? Sad is it may be, the punter does not give a damn.
People who thought this way were admitting to themselves that the government had lied to them. That’s a crack in credibility which could widen significantly now that there’s a very important issue Howard is trying to sell to a public which isn’t enthusiastic about the product. The Australian people know the government is capable of deception. As Fran’s question showed, the children overboard is still capable of haunting the Prime Minister.
***
Mike Seccombe, Sydney Morning Herald: The United States has backed its humanitarian concerns over Iraq with a promise that it will stay around after the war and will spend as much money on restoring the infrastructure of Iraq as it spends on flattening it. I was just wondering if you would give us a commitment that we will do something similar. Will we spend something equivalent to the half a billion to a billion dollars that were going to spend attacking on Iraq, on repairing the damage afterwards? Or will we leave the heavy lifting to someone else?
Howard: Well what we will do is well play a role in the reconstruction if that is necessary as a result of a military conflict. Of course, no reconstruction would be necessary if you could peacefully disarm Iraq, but we’ll make a contribution. We’ve already indicated that well contribute some money, I think $10 million to a fund set up by Kofi Annan. That won’t be the end of that. Well make a further contribution. We would actually want to play a significant and constructive role in the reconstruction process. The one thing that I have said were not going to do is were not going to provide a large peacekeeping force. We dont have the military or defence capability of doing that. But if anybody imagines that we won’t play a strong humanitarian, positive role in the process of reconstruction, theyre completely wrong.
Comment: I’ve never seen Howard visibly gag at a question before. After this one, his mouth fell open and there was a pause of at least two seconds before he answered. Secco’s question was a creative way of asking Howard about the peace, and the responsibility we would accept for rebuilding a country shattered by an invasion in which we participated. His use of the words “heavy hitting” repeated a phrase Howard had just used to in describing Australia’s duty not to sit on the sidelines:
There is a temptation, as some have argued, Australia should do is to sit on the sidelines, to be a spectator, to do very little either diplomatically or militarily, to leave the heavy lifting to others, to assume that we’ll somehow or other be okay in the equation and that in many respects would be quite an appealing approach. And I can understand why some of my fellow Australians have asked why does John Howard think this is important to Australia, why is he taking this stance? I’ve tried to explain some of those reasons. I don’t think this is an issue that Australia can simply be a spectator on. I don’t believe sitting on the sidelines is either good for Australia nor do I believe it has ever really been the Australian way.
His answer made it clear that Australia would repeat its behaviour after the 1991 Gulf War. It was our duty to repel Saddam the monster, the evil one, and we signed up to the moral imperative hook line and sinker. Yet when the war was won and Iraqi refugees fled to Iran, Australia and the rest of the world did little or nothing to look after them. Overwhelmed and financially unsupported by the West, Iran told the Iraqis to leave. They couldn’t go home and there was no queue to seek asylum, so many fled in boats. In early 2001, Phillip Ruddock began issuing temporary entry visas instead of permanent visas to boat people, for the explicit reason that most were now Iraqis and virtually all of them were genuine refugees. Post Tampa, he and Howard did much worse. It looks like we’ll again wash our hands of the casualties of war.
***
Michelle Grattan, The Age: Mr Howard, if as you advocate, countries in the Security Council got behind the resolution and a miracle happened and Iraq said yes it would say the game was up and disarmed, but Saddam Hussein was still there, would this be enough for peace given the strong case you have made today for regime change in the name of the Iraqi people?
John Howard: Well I would have to accept that if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, I couldn’t justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I’ve never advocated that. Much in all as I despise the regime. But what I was really trying to say today and perhaps it has had some effect is that I get a bit tired of the humanitarian argument all being on the one side. Its about time that the humanitarian argument was put into a better balance and people understand what a monstrous regime we are dealing with.
Comment: Howard devoted a significant hunk of his speech to the humanitarian case for war, signifying a victory for anti-war campaigners focused on the human costs of the war. The humanitarian argument was absent from the pro-war case until the anti-war humanitarian case gained traction. Howard said (after Bush showed him the way):
We’re talking about a regime that will gouge out the eyes of a child to force a confession from the child’s parents. This is a regime that will burn a persons limbs in order to force a confession or compliance. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed the crime of criticising it would be punished by the amputation of tongues. Since Saddam Hussein’s regime came to power in 1979 he has attacked his neighbours and he’s ruthlessly oppressed ethnic and religious groups in Iraq more than one million people have died in internal conflicts and wars. Some four million Iraqis have chosen exile. Two hundred thousand have disappeared from his jails never to be seen again. He has cruelly and cynically manipulated the United Nations oil-for-food programme. He’s rorted it to buy weapons to support his designs at the expense of the wellbeing of his people. Since the Gulf War the people of Iraq have not only endured a cruel and despotic regime but they’ve had to suffer economic deprivation, hunger and sickness.
And we should never forget that economic sanctions imposed have had a humanitarian cost. That cost has been made worse by Saddam Hussein’s rorting of the sanctions regime. Those sanctions could have been lifted years ago if Iraq had complied with the requirements of Security Council resolutions about disarmament.
It is too easy to limit, it’s too easy for some people to limit the humanitarian considerations to the consequences of military conflict. In truth there’s nothing easy or reassuring or comfortable about the problem of Iraq. Surely it is undeniable that if all the humanitarian considerations are put into the balance there is a very powerful case to the effect that the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime would produce a better life and less suffering for the people of Iraq than its continuation.
If Howard had used those compelling examples of a brutal and brutalising regime when the Iraqi boat people asked for sanctuary, instead of calling them queue jumpers, child throwers and terrorists, the Australian people would have empathised with the necessity for Iraqi refugees to go to any lengths to rescue their families from the horror. We would have welcomed them, not turned them away. Howard’s use of graphic examples of the truth of Saddam’s regime to justify the war on moral grounds after demonising refugees from it just a short time ago was despicable.
He’s in an uncomfortable position, and Michelle – a notoriously cautious columnist who this week in The Age was prepared to call his claim that he hadn’t yet decided to wage war without a UN sanction as ‘The big lie’, skewered Howard’s answer to the humanitarian anti-war. He is forced to admit that rescuing the Iraqi’s is not the reason for war, or even a reason. If he did make the claim, of course, he would be confronted with the terrible fact that the US backed Saddam for many years in full knowledge of his barbarism.
No, saving the Iraqi people would be a happy byproduct of war, that’s all. Not only that, we see from his answer to Secco’s question that he would do virtually nothing to help the Iraqi people rebuild a shattered nation after he’s helped bomb it to smithereens. Goodbye just war.
***
Dennis Grant, SBS television
In your speech today my attention was drawn to this line where you’re talking about “people who are ready to mount the moral parapets” of this debate. Can I draw your attention to some of them? Could I draw your attention to General Peter Gration – he was CDF at the time of the last Gulf War; Major General Peter Phillips, fighting soldier in Vietnam, the National President of the RSL. On the diplomatic side, Dick Woolcott – former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs. All of them are opposed to your policy. Can you point me to a credible, non-political figure who does support your policy?
John Howard: Well, in the nature of political debate Dennis, people don’t declare and come out in favour of something that is being done, they tend to come out against something that they disagree with. And in talking about those gentlemen, particularly Peter Gration and Peter Phillips, I don’t regard everybody as everybody’s who’s been a little bit critical as having mounted the moral parapets, I don’t. I, in fact, I followed carefully what both Peter Gration and Peter Phillips have said and I don’t, you know, I don’t put them in the category of people who have branded what we’re doing as immoral and war mongering and so forth, they have reservations, they have different views about different aspects of it. As far as Dick Woolcott is concerned, well I respect his views. He, of course, was somebody who was very critical of our intervention in East Timor, now that’s his right. But in a debate like this you get a whole range of views and I’ve read what Peter and the two Peter’s have said and whilst they raise a number of questions and express some concerns, I don’t regard them as having mounted the moral parapets in the way that some others have done.
Well the question of who supports me or who doesn’t support me in the end is a judgement for the people of Australia. I regard the views of individual Australians on this as just as valuable as the views of people you’ve quoted or any people I might invoke. I mean this is something for the people to think about and the purpose of a gathering like this is for me, through this forum, to talk directly to the people of Australia. I’m interested in their views, some of them don’t agree with me, some of them do. A lot of them haven’t made up their minds and I can understand that because, as I said right at the beginning, this is the first major difficult international issue of great complexity, the world has had to grapple since the arrival of what I might call the new dispensation of which I spoke in my address.
Comment: Howard has completely fallen apart now. By saying that in politics “people don’t declare and come out in favour of something that is being done, they tend to come out against something that they disagree with”, he’s implying that he’s decided to go to war, something he’s denied. If you take him at his word, the matter is unresolved, in which case you’d expect vigorous debate from credible people on both sides of the debate.
In any event, his claim is inaccurate. It’s a standard feature of political debate that before a decision is announced, a government lines up credible non-political figures to praise it on release. And when a government is not winning an important political debate, it’s standard practice to press supporters of its cause to go public. Howard, it seems, has been spectacularly unsuccessful in this endeavour.
The fact that he can think of not one credible non-political figure who supports his position is proof that he’s in deep trouble on the merits. To then outsource the question to the people of Australia to rack there brains over – and on a question of fact, not opinion – is breathtaking. And the fact that he gives the people this responsibility while making it clear he’s perfectly prepared to go to war in the face of contrary public opinion, shows he’s been snookered. For mine, Grant asked the question of the day.
***
Catherine McGrath, AM, PM and World Today: You opened your speech today by talking about terrorism, terrorist groups and you identified Osama bin Laden, you talked about his appalling track record. You then spoke about Iraq and said that if Iraq is not stopped that’s the green light for weapons to pass from terrorists to Iraq. Can I ask you, you’ve made a link between the terrorists’ requests, the terrorists’ desire but you haven’t made a strong link between Iraq or provided any proof that Iraq is seeking to deliver its weapons to terrorists. Can I ask you a two part question – do you have any evidence that you can provide now? Secondly, what about other countries that hold nuclear weapons that may provide opportunities for terrorists, for example, Pakistan which some could argue would have more chance of passing them on?
Howard: Well, can I start with the other countries that have them. I mean, we regret very much that Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, we made that very clear. I mean, I do have some warm regard for the courage and the stance of General Musharraf in the war against terror. I have great admiration for the risks that he’s taken and the strength he’s displayed. India and Pakistan, to my knowledge, didn’t sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and they don’t, to my knowledge, have the same track record as Iraq.
I mean, to compare a country like India which is the probably the – I mean, it’s the largest functioning democracy in the world – with Iraq is very very unfair. And equally, although Pakistan has not had the same familiarity with parliamentary democracy as India, it is nonetheless in many other ways a very very good international citizen. So, I don’t think you can and I think it’s very unfair on both India and Pakistan to draw that analogy.
Catherine, with respect I think you leapt over one of the things I said. I mean, my argument is this in relation to Iraq. Iraq is demonstrably, to use my language, a rogue state. If we don’t make sure that Iraq is disarmed, that of itself will encourage other rogue states to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction and the more of those states that acquire, the greater inevitably is the likelihood that those weapons are going to get into the hands of terrorists. And when you have on top of that clear evidence, that I mentioned today, that Al Qaeda – the most lethal of the international terrorist organisations – wants to get its hands on, and in fact is doing its own work in relation to those weapons, you know, that to me is pretty compelling.
Now, you say proof, I mean as I say, I can’t prove before an Old Bailey or a Central Criminal Court jury but can I say to you again, I mean if the world waits for that, it’s too late. I mean, that is I said a Pearl Harbour situation.
Comment: He’s on the run. He raises India out of the blue as covering waffle, then finds that his justifications for not seeing India as a threat ruptures his pr-Pakistan case, as Pakistan is a military dictatorship still suspended from the Commonwealth due to the overthrow of the democratic government. To allege that Pakistan – a known financial and military supporter of the Taliban before September 11 – is “a very very good international citizen” is beyond belief.
To the big question. Was there ANY evidence that Iraq is seeking to deliver WMDs to terrorists. The sting in the tale in this question is Andrew Wilkie’s claim that ONA assesses that Saddam could deliver WMDs to terrorists AS A RESPONSE to an invasion. Howard ignores this crucial claim in his speech and in every answer.
Instead, he replies by restating that Iraq is a rogue state, and that there is good evidence that al-Qaeda wants WMDs. From this non-answer he jumps to the admission that he can’t, and shouldn’t have to, provide proof to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Sure, but how about some EVIDENCE – even a little bit. He covers over this gap by citing Pearl Harbour. There was no warning of that attack – is Howard saying we have the right to invade another country with no proof at all?
***
Laurie Oakes, Nine Network: I don’t think you answered Catherine’s question, so before I ask mine I’ll ask hers in a slightly different way. We read in the morning papers that you were going to present today evidence from our intelligence agencies of a link between Iraq and terrorists. What happened to that evidence? Why isn’t it in your speech? And since you’ve made no attempt at all to demonstrate a link, are we to assume there is none?
And then my question after you’ve answered that – the speculation that the US and its allies will stop seeking a fresh UN resolution against Iraq before launching military action, Spain one of the co-sponsors has indicated there’s not much point if it’s not going to get through. Is that your information and how do you feel about that?
John Howard: Well, Laurie, in answer to the second question – I’ve had a number of discussions about what’s happening in the UN, the latest information I have is that there is still a very concerted effort being made to get a resolution through. Now, its a fluid situation, things can often change but they’re still trying very hard.
As for the first question, well I read what was in the paper this morning and I’m not entirely responsible for what’s in the newspapers, although I’m sometimes responsible for some of it. I’m perfectly happy to plead guilty to that. What I endeavoured to do today was to do two things – to establish clear evidence that terrorist groups wanted weapons of mass destruction and I think I did that and I think I did that quite convincingly. I’ve never represented to anybody that we could produce what I called Darlinghurst or Old Bailey proof.
Comment: Mike Seccombe details the misrepresentation from John Howard’s office which got him live coverage from Nine and Seven as well as the ABC in All the propaganda that’s fit to hear. Besides getting the free hit on TV, Howard achieved page one headlines and news stories the morning of his speech containing the claim that Howard would detail new evidence of terrorist attempts to seek WMDs (see, for example, the page one lead of the Herald, PM’s final case for war). Howard awkwardly fudges – he doesn’t deny he leaked false info, he doesn’t deny his office leaked false info (he can’t – his audience KNOWS the truth). So he denies something Laurie hadn’t alleged – that the leak was that he’d provide evidence satisfying the criminal onus of proof. He and his office have been caught out in blatant media manipulation. He seems to be learning his media tricks from Bush too – the incident reminds me of senasational, and false, White House leaks to the press before big speeches, for example the security council statement of evidence by Colin Powell. Fake info, dishonest spin. Find the suckers to convince. Get the cheap scores. Sickening. Blowback – full-on cynicism from journalists, who’ll stop taking big deal people at their word.
Colin Powell announced today that the US might renege on Bush’s cast iron guarantee to his people last week that he would force a security council vote – that all members would have to put their cards on the table (US wavers on seeking UN approval for the development). See Cards on the table for Bush’s promise: “Yes, we’ll call for the vote: No matter what the whip count is, we’ll call for a vote. It’s time for people to show their cards.”
Yet Howard yesterday, true to form, avoided the question, which meant he didn’t have to discuss the ramifications of a refusal to seek a vote, as distinct from a defeat on a vote. George Bush, Asutralia’s wartime leader.
***
Tony Wright, The Bulletin: If, as Donald Rumsfeld suggested a couple of days ago, Britain decided not to go ahead in the Gulf. How comfortable would you have been for Australia to be the single deputy to the US in any strike on Iraq? And when you deployed Australian troops in the first place, did you imagine at that time that Australia could still be in the position of being the only other nation that troops in the Gulf, other than the US and Britain, at this time?
Howard: Well, I think it’s – I didn’t see a lot of other countries at that time coming in, although we made our decision based on our own assessment. I mean, as to what the British do is a matter for Britain. What we do is a matter for us. Clearly, the presence of the British there is seen by many Australians as an important supplement to the presence of the Americans. I want to say that the leadership that’s been displayed by Tony Blair on this issue in his own party has been extraordinary and I salute him for that. He’s a very strong Labor leader and I think he deserves a great deal of respect for the very strong attitude that he’s taken. He believes very strongly in what he’s doing – I know that, as I do.
Comment: Why won’t John Howard level with the Australian people? Its stating the bleeding obvious that what Britain does is what Britain does. What would it mean for us? We get an admission that many Australians think it’s important that the Brits fight beside us if there’s a non-UN sanctioned attack, but doesn’t say what he thinks.
***
Karen Middleton, The West Australian: The Chief of the Defence Force, General Cosgrove, gave an undertaking today that he would never lie about the activity of our forces in the Gulf, but he also acknowledged the Defence forces have been generally reluctant to discuss publicly particularly the activity about special forces. I’d like to ask you, can you envisage any circumstances in which you would deem it in the national interest not to tell the truth to the Australian people about our forces activities in the Gulf?
John Howard: Well I haven’t come across them yet. It’s a hard question. I don’t want to mislead the Australian people. Sometimes you have to be careful if the lives of people are at risk and I hope the Australian people would always understand that. But as to whether I would set out deliberately to deceive them, no I hope I never do that.
Comment: Are you comforted by Mr Howard’s ‘hope” that he won’t deliberately deceive the Australian people? Maybe it gets easier with practice.
***
Lincoln Wright, The Canberra Times:
Prime Minister, your speech today strikes me as a clear case for regime change in a sense that youve raised the humanitarian argument about the regime. I think youve backed off a bit from that before. But is it really an addition to your foreign policy armoury now? And my second question is the Americans talk a lot about reshaping the Middle East in terms of geopolitics in Iran, Saudi Arabia. Youve rarely mentioned that, that were buying into that position. Can you comment on that please as well?
John Howard: Well you’re the commentator about what Ive said. But our position on regime change has not changed. But I do think that its necessary in these public presentation of this whole thing for the Australian public to be reminded of the balance of the humanitarian argument because inevitably when the possibility of war looms people talk about the costs of it, and that is naturally human. I mean we all hate it. Anybody who thinks I’m enjoying having to argue this position in the sense that, you know, I like the idea that at some stage this country might be involved in a military conflict, I mean nothing could be further from the truth. I’d much rather be talking to you today even about things like the – the GST’s come and gone, but other things like that, much rather. You know, health policy, having a debate about good water policy with the States, things like that. But I cant do that. But I do want the Australian people to understand that the humanitarian argument is not all on the side of those who are attacking the stance being taken by the Americans and by implication ourselves and the British. And if it does come to military action I believe there is a very powerful case that the humanitarian balance will point to a better life for the Iraqi people without Saddam Hussein because although regime change is not the primary goal of Australian policies, if it is necessary to forcibly disarm Iraq it is axiomatic that the regime will go. I think most people understand that.
But as far as reshaping the Middle East is concerned, well the American Administration can say what it chooses to on that. We’re not necessarily saying exactly the same thing on reshaping the Middle East. I am well known as somebody who is a strong supporter of the State of Israel but Im not an uncritical friend and nobody should be. But I would like to see the re-elected government of Israel, it doesn’t seem to be quite as possible now because of the structure of the coalition, I would like to see as much responsiveness as possible. I do believe in the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. They do have a right to that, and I welcome the cautious moves to appoint a prime minister for Palestinethe Palestinian Council I think you call it, and I hope we get something out of that and I think theres a great hunger around the world and I want to make sure that we keep trying. I think it was a mistake that those representatives of the Palestinian Council were not allowed to participate in that conference in London. But can I just say again, how can you ask the Israelis to reach out to certain initiatives when these suicide bombers keep blowing up kids and university students and everything.
Comment: Can Howard really get away with saying that the US “can say what it chooses on (reshaping the middle-east”? He’s already admitted we’re a close ally, and his actions show that when where the Americans lead he follows on request. And can he really get away the meaningless vagueness of “we’re not necessarily saying exactly the same thing on reshaping the Middle East” How much contempt does he expect the Australian people to cop?
***
James Grubel, AAP: Mr Howard. I just want to follow up on your comments a moment ago about the rules of engagement for Australian forces in the Gulf. Presumably some thought has been given to this, given that events are coming to a head. Can you explain to us now whether there will be limits on will our SAS troops be involved in frontline activities going into Iraq, and can you explain to us will the FA18s over there be limited in the sort of missions they can undertake, or will they be given a free rein to attack Iraqi strongholds?
Howard:
No, well look, I cant go into that detail. Were just running a little bit ahead of ourselves in asking me to go into that detail. But what I was doing was stating the principle, and that is that there will be separate rules of engagement and there will be a targeting policy to be approved if all of those things become necessary, and that that will be determined by Australia. I mean obviously the Defence Minister and I will be very directly involved in that.
Comment: Webdiarist Jack Robertson has focused on the unanswered question of the rules of engagement for quite a while now. The ROE must be in place by now, awaiting a tick when Bush presses the war button. But there can be no discussion on debate, as usual. We’ll be told after Howard sends us to war.