Artist Robert Bosler is Webdiary’s commentator on Latham the man. His work includes Time for Labor to play to win, not just play safe and An artist’s blueprint for a Latham win.

 

This country wanted political action and now we’ve got it. We’ve been given a teaser with the latest engagement between Latham and Howard, and it’s thrilling to see the lifeforce of the Australian system flushed again and pumping. After the barrenness of a seemingly endless Howard, we have our rising star, and the difference in his play was always going to alarm some of us. It’s going to get more alarming, too, so perhaps we should prepare ourselves a little.

Why is Latham alarming? We are not used to him. His style is world’s apart from his opponent. We need to get used to him and learn more about him, as he is on his way towards running the country. It’s more than a matter of style. The difference between the two men is a creative difference. One could be no more different from the other.

Creativity is not the exclusive domain of artists and writers. That we are about to talk about creativity demonstrates so wonderfully how our nation is starting to breathe again. It’s exhilarating to be talking about it again, because everything we do is a creative act. Everything. Write a shopping list, you are creative, right there.

Everything you do, every time you speak a word, or move your hand you are being creative. Creativity is our fundamental state of living. How highly you create, or what you create, are matters of your personal choice. These are also matters of self worth, of freedom and faith, and it is magnetisingly important that as a nation we begin to speak of it again.

That’s why this impending political decision – Latham or Howard – is so important to the way we will live once that decision is made. Each man is so different, creatively, that decision will affects us in much of what we will do, how we will think and how we will respond to our lot in life.

We can understand this better if we make a simple distinction between the male and female aspects of creativity.

Not gender – these are forces, the masculine force and the feminine force. Every creative act contains each of these forces. In Latham and Howard the mix could not be more different, and we need a measure of maturity in properly assessing them.

The feminine force is what comes first in the creative act. The feminine force we know as intuitive, sensitive, encompassing, receptive. This is the energy which descends upon us first in the act of creation. It is not physical in force, it is a sense.

We need then, as the second component of creativity, the masculine energy of action, of enactment, to bring the creation to be. In effect the two forces are combined intrinsically and immaculately in all we do, in varying degrees of each, and the difference in the general mix between our choice of leaders is astounding.

Latham

The man is highly creative. He is, beyond his full ability yet to control it, a man given to the creative spirit. That he cannot fully control it is not to be critical of him because the control of the creative act requires ultimately mastery, and the journey of total mastery, if anyone’s finally to obtain it, is one demanding decades.

It’s a measure of the man that he has embarked on that journey, because unlike Howard, Latham has chosen it and it is the tougher calling.

The creative spirit drives him. Because the creative spirit is driving him, empowers him, guides him, loves him – yes – for his commitment to it, this creative spirit holds him. He is so given to it he appears born unto it, and once on the journey he cannot step away.

We have here a man who feels things first, as an intuitive knowingness. This is the same intuitive knowingness once spoken of as being a woman’s knowingness or intuition, before we better understood the forces at play in each of us. It is a sensing; a sense. To the woman reading this, may this be at least another small step in our shared understanding. For the man reading this, just to be sure, know that when the footballer is about to cut through and score it is this sense he first feels.

That sense is an energy. It brings written into it the nuts and bolts of what is required to make it happen, but the nuts and bolts flow much later. First, comes the sense. Being highly creative, Latham knows only the sense, the feeling, the energy, the absolute empowerment of it, before anything else.

In humanity, this is the birthing ground of new ideas. In pure form, it is preciously rare in a political leader, and it serves us well to set aside our immediate responses, valid as they are, and look more into what this creative spirit is all about.

Given to it, Latham lives for it. To the highly creative person, the important thing above all else is to allow that sense to live, and live through them. In his capacity as a leader, Latham by his own choice, wishes to have others grow and benefit as a result of what comes to be. That is the very nature of creativity. That sense, that knowingness, that others (Australians) can grow and benefit because of what he senses is his defining characteristic.

This is the true leader. This is what eventually makes greatness. That Latham has even just begun upon this journey is electrifyingly interesting.

The element of courage in believing in the intuitive knowingness of what you can do cannot be understated. It is easier often to tie up the nuts and bolts of a new idea once it is born, but in the creative soul those nuts and bolts are in the first instance sensed only, if at all, and that they are there and that the idea can be done is a matter of absolute faith and trust.

This is the vision of leadership. To make it happen, it carries with it, also, an absolute faith in you.

Lately, in Mark Latham, we have as a nation seen these qualities begin to arrive. Right now, he is beginning his coming of age in the grander realm of our nation’s leadership and it is still very early for him in understanding the muscle of his own ability, through this creative process, on the national scale. Where it will go remains to be seen.

For now, in these early days in the journey, it could be suggested that the most important thing for him is to represent that force and to give it life, to begin to breathe it into existence. That it must live, to him, is what drives him. If so, then the nuts and bolts of it all is of lesser importance than the need to bring it to first life. If so, the nuts and bolts of what he represents he would know are written into it, and he would trust that absolutely.

Remember, we are speaking of creative forces here, not political forces, which may require of themselves that the nuts and bolts are there at the start. But not always, and no national growth will happen unless it we begin with trust. Nor are we talking here the manner of choice in the way Latham introduces policy in the electioneering process, which is a tactical issue as much as anything else, and relevant only to this political time.

Having only started his serious journey of creativity on a national scale we see a man not yet developed nor perhaps even focused on the issues – the manner – of his ideas’ introduction. That what he wishes to bring to life will result in debate or uproar would of course be well known to him. Early in the journey, he has learned that this debate and uproar will exist, as a natural response to the process, but to him right now it is more probably something to be endured, not something that he has or is wanting to have control of. That what he senses must be given life to him just now is all; that it must live, is what drives him.

Later, as the corrective forces of pragmatic government, of media, of legislation, of failure, of success bear upon him, he will learn to better represent the early stages of the force so as to limit any uproar of its introduction. These will be the steps towards mastery; mastery of the demanding creative forces driving him. That he is such a young man and is this far along that demanding journey already is remarkable in our national history, and for now he must be given this credit.

That Latham represents this high creativity stands him on his own on the political stage. And this brings him to where he can come undone. Alone the creative power is without value; it needs others to make it happen. As Latham’s power grows, so too must his ability to acknowledge the role others play in bringing what he senses to bear. It is a learning curve for all involved, and can only be done by doing.

Comparisons are being already being made with Keating. Keating, too, lived and breathed his vision. But the Keating creative force came undone, and it did so for the same reasons Latham is just beginning to face. Keating failed because he failed to bring the punter with him. So enrapturing was the vision he lost sight of the punter. Latham must learn from this, and bring the punters with him. Inspiringly, distinctly, Latham appears to have the punters foremost in his mind as the very element of his vision.

The punters will come, but there must be a reason for them coming, and they must feel it. It must be about the collective effect of the creative act. It must be about how everyone plays their part. These are high powers Latham represents, but it is the meekest in the community who must guide him and teach hims to ensure his powerful vision comes to be.

If Latham cuts off his connection with those he wishes to serve, if he cuts off his connection to grass-roots criticism, his time will be over. Look for him in his community gatherings with you, and know that what he is doing, with you, is vital to the process.

Yet it is not all about this creative, feminine, energy, for Latham. Let’s be prepared for the consequences of it now, because Latham is colder, tougher, harder, than Howard has ever been. Let’s not be so taken with Latham’s ideas as to miss what also we are in for. The spirit of creativity, of what is pressing on Latham to be done, carries with it the demand that it must be done, and if challenged, will rise in force to achieve it. The corrective forces of his colleagues’ nature, of media, of opposition, of electorate calling, of pragmatic legislation, will all bear upon that demanding spirit and therein is it checked. But be prepared, because vision carries steel and the creative force, not the destructive force, is the stronger.

What a job the Labor Party has ahead of it. This is the fun time now. Once elected, they will have the task of somehow allowing Latham’s creative spirit its freedom to prosper and bring benefit while carefully shaping and guiding that spirit through the grinding process of political enactment.

What we have seen lately of Latham versus Howard is nothing more than a man coming into being. Engagement with Howard these last days would have been, more than anything for Latham, a test of that creative process. Latham’s true passion is the spirit of growth, of change, of creative benefit. Of what he senses must be done. This last engagement with Howard would more than anything have provided a valuable test of response to his own creative process, from which he can learn and mould the process for representing it more masterfully in the future.

Howard

A solicitor. Here we have an entirely different mix of energies. A solicitor is comfortable not for a new creative force, but to want to pigeon-hole something already presented. Howard’s creativity is not in newness or freshness, but in rearranging the existing. Moving things from here, to there. Re-organising things. Making a new order of things, or what he thinks is the rightful order of things, but of things already in existence.

He does possess intuitive and receptive qualities, but they are entirely geared for receiving how he is perceived by the public. It’s an entirely different mix of energy. Howard’s sensitivity is not wired towards new creative solutions or gifts for the public, it’s wired to what exists in the public mind about how he and his party appears politically.

It is interesting that Howard followed Keating in our history. Keating led that journey with the vision, lost touch with those he wished to serve, and Howard was there to mop it up. Howard, originally, gave some in the community comfort for the very fact that he had no vision, that he was a plodder, a re-arranger. Box this up here, restructure this over there, pull this out of here.

Because Howard’s intuition, his sensitivity, his receptivity, is wired to his political standing as viewed by the community, the community in effect doesn’t receive anything newly created. This is not a criticism of Howard, it is a statement of fact. But it does mean the nation will not move forward into new ground. It moves sideways or gets separated and is in danger of going backwards with each policy development. It will be interesting to see whether people want this to continue.

Howard did bring changes, and while they seemed to give us something new, in fact he has only given us things that were already created, elsewhere if not here. He has restructured, rearranged, reorganised, but he has not really created. He has not brought into the community something newly dreamed. Nor is he wired to ever want to. Howard’s creative mix means that the great words of history that said “I have a dream” mean only that he can restructure, not create anew, nor ever see anew or want to see it.

This has meant our nation hasn’t felt the nourishment of creative energy. The opposite has happened, because we have been held in an attempt of fear or division: again, not a criticism, a statement of fact. When the creative mind is given the choice of fear and division, or hope and opportunity, there is no choice for that mind: the grandness and value of hope and opportunity totally discount the temptation of temporary personal gain in its opposite.

Without this nourishment, for eight years now, we are as a nation drying up. There is a quiet cry in our nation now which has been there for some time. This dryness or spiritual sparseness, this sense of communal vacancy, is reflected in the way human issues of national community growth are shelved or swept away, and there is a silent edict that no one dare introduce something new or progressive. Our Aboriginal community, as one instance, have long since gone quiet in total disillusionment and neglect.

Issues of the economy in this vacant dry environment take on a highly unusual level of importance, despite the fact that any economist will tell you that there is much more to a successful economy than merely pulling economic levers. If the nation continues to suffer this lack of creative nourishment, the long term effect is that our youth turn from the sunshine and lower their gaze to the ground, seeing no future or receptive model for what they might dream as being.

The razzle dazzle of wars and terrorism issues wipe away any immediate public view of how ingrown this spiritual vacancy and growing depression is in the country now, and those who are sensitive to what is happening to the fabric of our national heart and mind are desperately concerned, knowing there is no government interest in the state of it, let alone its nurturing.

In fact, there is a blatant disregard and on occasions outright contempt shown for it. The ruination of trust in so many areas for so many years has done unseen damage, and filters through into every decision people make. This is a legacy which takes years to uncover, long after the fanfare of the government is gone.

Latham’s arrival has breathed new life into our national debate, but will it live after the election?

To understand how the nation feels without creative nourishment, perhaps we could use an analogy, of rearranging the house for a month, knocking out bricks here, sweeping that over there, day after day. How do you feel?

You feel like you need to have a shower, freshen up, and find some replenishment and some nourishment.

Our nation has been rearranged and rearranged and the question now is do we want to be rearranged any more?

Yes, we are frightened of change. For the first twelve months after Latham becomes our Prime Minister many could feel more frightened than they ever were with Howard. But that’s what happens when you move into another house; for a little while you feel unsettled, especially if it’s a much bigger house with more rooms and more to be discovered about where we live. In the end though, it is fun.

It could take those initial twelve months for those powerful corrective forces to guide Latham on his journey, and for us to get used to breathing the energy of new national ideas. Without the monotone drone of Howard’s rearranging we will hear the rich effect of the freer voice of the creative spirit, and we’ll hear words of encouragement and hope instead of fear.

And then, in your own creative acts, in everything you do, you have the sense of freedom that feels like blue skies open, and with it perhaps the dawning of your own idea.

How secure we will feel as a nation breathing that new energy will depend largely on the corrective forces bearing upon it. Among many other forces we have Peter Costello, a man without real creativity, but with his highly developed corrective force a man shaping up as exactly what our nation needs, as the Leader of the Opposition, to check the inspired Latham and help our treasured nation go forward.

It is a fascinating choice we are facing. Do we invite into our lives the sureness of new ideas, new directions, and the excitement and concern that those new developments bring from a man whose senses are geared towards the unseen future? Or do we continue with a man whose senses are geared towards how he is perceived electorally, whose actions are about restructure and rearrangement.

How much reform can we take? How brave are we to take the future? And how fortunate we are that we have a choice.

Webdiary intern Judith Ireland is a fourth year media and government student at Sydney University. She plays the piano in a cafe and teaches music.

 

Chris Corrigan’s Patrick Stevedores corporation has been found guilty of three criminal breaches of occupational health and safety laws, seven years after he described wharfies’ rest breaks as a rort.

The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission found on Friday that Patricks knowingly allowed workers to suffer soft tissue issues because of the postures heavy crane drivers in Port Botany were forced to adopt and the repetitive movements of their work.

In the aftermath of Corrigan’s 1998 victory in the waterfront dispute, 800 waterfront workers lost their jobs. Following a hastily devised new enterprise agreement, remaining straddle drivers were forced to work prolonged shifts using run down equipment, with breaks only for meals.

Justice Wayne Haylen found that Patricks implemented the new work system despite warnings from a medical expert that it was unsafe. Despite Patrick’s knowledge of the health dangers of bad seating and unsafe cabin conditions, it persisted with these work practices.

The Maritime Union of Australia’s Sydney Branch secretary, Robert Coombs, began proceedings against Patrick Stevedores four years ago, arguing that a high percentage of workers at Port Botany were experiencing serious back and neck injuries due to prolonged working hours without enough time to exercise, stretch and stand.

While finding that the potential risk of injury was “real rather than theoretical,” Justice Haylen was not satisfied that the effects of the work place conditions were widespread. “The evidence, however, does not allow me to conclude that all drivers, or even a significant majority of drivers, have suffered these type of injuries,” he said.

Maritime Union Secretary Paddy Crumlin said workers went to court “in desperation” after discussions with Patricks failed to get action. Corrigan refused all opportunities to settle out of court.

Chris Corrigan pleaded guilty last year to two charges of failing to provide adequate training to workers and agreed to change work practices established under the last enterprise agreement.

A spokesman for Patricks has said the issues had already been dealt with and there were now additional breaks for workers at Port Botany. With both parties now in mediation, Crumlin said “substantial progress” had been made and that the court case was a ” catalyst for a much more mature and transparent approach” by Patricks.

Corrigan faces what could be millions of dollars in fines, with the Commission yet to decide penalties.

So far only the ABC has reported the judgement, on The World Today.

Hiya. Iraq is at flashpoint and Latham’s crash through policy to withdraw our troops from Iraq is starting to look very well timed. The troops out plan and the extraordinary revelations of the US September 11 inquiry have reignited Webdiarist discussion on the reasons for the war and how it will end. Tonight the Webdiary gender debate and lots of information and comment on the war, the troops, and the way forward.

NOTICEBOARD

Scott Burchill recommends Protests Unleashed by Cleric Mark a New Front in War and Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war in The Guardian, where a former British ambassador reveals that “President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001”.

Scott also recommends Musharraf left counting the cost, on the civil war in Pakistan encouraged by the United States.

Chris Murphy recommends a New York Times piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/international/asia/04NAUR.html on Australia’s lock-up of boat people (subscription required). Julian Burnside QC is quoted: “[Nauru] is indistinguishable from the detention of people in Guantanamo Bay but for this difference: the people being held in Guantanamo Bay are suspected of serious offenses.”

For more on the alleged intervention of the CIA in Australian poltcis in 1995 see Ray Martin’s interview with ex-CIA officer Christopher Boyce.

***

WEBIARY AND WOMEN

Maggie Churchward

Yes, women are not well represented on Webdiary. My gut feeling is that many women read it but don’t respond. I suspect that women think and express themselves differently from men.They also have different needs, requirements and demands from men. What matters to men may not matter to women.

One only needs to check out Iraqi blogs to see that difference. Most of the blogs are by men with freedom to move as they choose. Yet Riverbend, a woman, talks about the US invasion of Iraq in very negative terms (see her today for the latest on the uprising in Iraq). She talks about abductions, rape and attacks on women who are not wearing a head scarf. She is denounced by most of the comments from Americans as a Baathist who has lost out since Hussein was ousted. Yet all the male bloggers give only positive statements on what is happening in Iraq and all of their respondents are in support of the Iraq invasion.

PS: I now have a much clearer understanding of why women’s contributions are so limited on Webdiary. Before I emailed you I put on the vegetables to cook. After emailing you I found that I had destroyed the vegetables and two sauce pans. Our house is on the market for sale and all you can smell is burnt something. Is it any wonder that women don’t sent in responses! The men who respond are probably doing it from their offices or somewhere else that allows them to comment without other responsibilities intruding. How many women are in that position???

***

Susan Metcalfe

Harry Heidelberg’s comments in Webdiarist’s verdict: troops out, please point to a number of the elements which continue to marginalise women. Harry says, “Didn’t we go through that debate on Webdiary in 2001 and say it didnt matter?”

Harry, who is included in this ‘we’ and who decided it didn’t matter? And why should the subject be closed now because some people had a debate about it in August 2001?

In recent months there’s been a noticeable decline in women’s presence on Webdiary. I dont understand why these men have a problem with my drawing attention to that. It’s like saying that because we had the debate about refugees arriving on boats in 2001 we should all shut up about it now. Never mind that many of those refugees are still despairing in the Topside Detention Camp on Nauru more than 2 years later.

Harry also says, “Gender is relevant when we speak of gender specific topics but otherwise, I don’t get the relevance of gender and Webdiary contributions.”

What exactly is a gender specific topic? As a woman, I am much more than the sum of my biology if that is what you mean by gender specific topics. And in our society my lived experience is gender specific – the way other people deal with me is often coloured very much by my identity as a woman. Considering that this is a political forum, my gender is perhaps even more specific.

Harry says, ‘I never think about what sex the contributors are’.

If you are a man Harry then it is likely that you have not had to think very much about your gender – men (in general terms) have not been denied a voice and a presence in our society. On the contrary, women have long been marginalised and silenced. If you are a woman Harry, then I think you may have bought into a view that doesn’t serve you very well.

And if gender doesnt matter then why aren’t there more women in politics? Although numbers of women in positions of power have grown in recent years, these changes are extremely slow. In 2003, statistics on women in parliaments put Australia at number 25 in the world with a female representation of 25.3%, just behind Rwanda with 25.7%. Sweden had the highest representation of women at 45.3%, whilst women worldwide represented just 15.3% of the total number of parliamentarians.

In matters of war, conflict and securing the peace, women in Australia are largely excluded from decision-making processes. When the talk turns to these issues we see the images and hear the rhetoric of the men who have the power to decide our fates. George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard all dominated our media last year, leading us into wars against other men – the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. At a human rights conference last year Betty McClellan said:

Whenever the leaders of nations (who are usually men) are considering war, women are deliberately pushed aside, ignored, alienated. No male leader considering involving his country in war ever stops to seek women’s opinion. Women were almost totally left out of decision-making about the war on Iraq and the previous war on Afghanistan. It’s like war is mens business and women are not permitted to give an opinion.

This is not to say that women are not also the perpetrators and supporters of conflicts. But when it comes to war, it is overwhelmingly the women and children who suffer the greatest consequences – the same women and children who are excluded from the decision-making processes which determine their lives.

At the peace tables and at war talks women are silenced and left to, literally, pick up the pieces of their families and communities. Bosnian women for example were excluded from the Dayton talks even though during the conflict 40 womens associations remained organised and active across ethnic lines. In March 2000, of 34 UN Special Representatives or Special Envoys appointed to regions of conflict, none were women. At the Bonn peace talks on Afghanistan in November 2001, only three women were included compared to sixty male delegates, and only after intense international pressure had demanded female representation. Each of the three women were exiles currently living outside Afghanistan; the women who were currently experiencing life in Afghanistan were given no representation and no voice. The men in these situations might also have said that gender doesn’t matter.

Harry says, ‘I get the feeling that Susan would like to contribute more often but feels so alienated by the men so she can’t. Susan, relax.’

Relax Harry, I can speak for myself about how I feel, I don’t need an interpreter. Mostly I don’t have time to contribute more than I have. But I do try to read Webdiary when I can and I would like to hear more women’s voices and opinions.

If we were all meeting in person instead of online, I would not want to be sitting in a group of only men hearing only their views. My preference would be to listen to the opinions of both men and women. For me, the fact that people are writing on a web page doesn’t change that.

I dont have all the answers on this issue. I am simply asking questions and presenting my personal point of view. Some of the issues may not be gender related at all but may be due instead to entrenched ideas of left/right divisions and ways of debating that exclude anything that falls in between.

And what is so wrong with wanting to hear a bit less from men and more from some of the great women out there instead? Women have written some wonderful pieces on Webdiary and I would like to read more. If men find that ‘bizarre’ there is more of a problem here than I had imagined.

***

Paul Walter in Adelaide

My initial reaction to Susan Metcalf and Marilyn Shepherd was that Marilyn is hardly a shrinking violet and has been coming forward to contribute to debates for years: I’d like a dollar for every time I have seen her comments published in different places and good on her, although I don’t always agree with what she says. So, maybe another couple would-be rad feminists on an anti-bloke kick, I thought.

Then Harry Heidelberg expressed the sort of world-weary sympathy and sentiments I was feeling in Webdiarist’s verdict: troops out, please.

But I reread Webdiary’s gender debate in 2001 and the comments, in particular, of Elen Seymour and Paul Zikking concerning stereotyping of women and prejudging the value of any prospective contribution to a given discussion made by women.

I was provoked enough to reread Susan’s and Marilyn’s pieces. What REALLY emerges on second glance is not so much contempt of debate but intense disappointment that so little often emerges FROM all this earnest debating. I am depressed enough myself at the slowness of social change in a world of suffering people to admit the identification is very keen, here, after all!

I am so glad that the many women who contribute here do so. I hope they will not get too discouraged with an intractable political system and “cop out”, as I am tempted to do, in despair. I also re-read Polly Bushfrom that debate a few years ago, because if enough people “turn off” we DO become a “banana republic”, with all the horrors that might entail.

***

LATHAM’S TROOPS PULLOUT

Chris Dickinson

I have been following the discussion on Webdiary since your piece Latham’s Iraq indiscretion ends honeymoon. While I agree overall with your take on it, I disagree with your comment that the real issue is when the troops’ job will be done. Perhaps this SHOULD be the issue, but it isn’t what either side of politics were arguing about last week. Latham, as you correctly said, has made a silly statement and refused to back down from it.

His comment was that the troops would be back at Christmas if a Labor government were elected in November . That qualification changed everything – from “Back by Christmas” to “Back within weeks of the election of a Labor government, whenever that might be”. This is a major change of policy, apparently taken on the spur of the moment, and highly irresponsible in the immediate post-Spanish bombing climate.

Although he clearly didn’t intend to, Latham gave Al Qaeda a side to support in the coming election, and that can’t be good. He effectively said that he was hoping for a re-run of Spain. In politics, context is everything, as Latham must learn. Naturally, the government has attacked this as irresponsible. Any government would, even one less desperate for a political lifeline than ours.

To make matters even worse, Latham responded by charging that the PM wanted to bring the troops back in the election campaign. He was probably right, but the unfortunate side-effect is that the troops might NOT now be returned before the election, because if Howard did so it would make a nonsense of his attack! So our troops may end up spending longer in Iraq than they would have otherwise done, with all the risks that entails, because of some unthinking words on Mark Latham’s part. That is not a good outcome. In war, loose statements by politicians can endanger lives. Latham has to realise this (even if it is too late to expect John Howard to).

I consider myself to be on the center-left politically. Before the war I considered the Iraq invasion unjustified for the stated reasons – and imminent WMD threat) but probably justified on humanitarian grounds. My opinion has not changed.

Nonetheless, for its domestic policies alone I am eager to get rid of the Howard government as soon as possible. But Latham has yet to convince me that he has what it takes to be Prime Minister, sadly. I hope he will continue to mature, and that come November (or whenever) I will be able to vote for him in good conscience, instead of having to comfort myself with voting “Greens” or “Informal”.

***

James Davis

The job is done is in Iraq when it is safe enough for Australian diplomats and staff to perform their tasks under the protection of a civlian security service. The current troop deployment should not be confused with SAS involvement in the preliminary stages of the war, which had a different task. All those troops have now returned to Australia.

I support what Shaun O’Brien says in Media don’t get it on Latham and Iraq – if Mark Latham wants to bring the troops home he needs to examine the issue in the context of Australia’s security partnership with the US (obviously a much wider issue than just Iraq) and the Government’s non-military involvement in Iraq.

Latham’s contention regarding the Iraq based troops’ contribution to homeland security is flawed. The ADF fights conventional military threats to Australia and Australian interests. It can be used to defeat other threats (terrorism) but only when requested to by the civil authorities and approved by the government. The forces currently in Iraq would not be used to defeat terrorist threats in Australia..

***

Simon Neldner

I’ve been thinking about the intensity of the Howard-Latham debate on the future of Australia’s Iraqi deployment, and realised that no-one has put forward the proposition that our own intelligence agencies probably know next-to-nothing about Iraq, its problems or where it all might end. They probably know about as much as your more informed readers can discern from a variety of newspapers, current affairs programs and expert analyses on the public record. Let’s consider the garbage we were spoon-fed from the over-paid, over-educated and easily manipulated intelligence agencies from the start of this sorry affair.

I enter into evidence the following: (1) those elusive weapons of mass destruction (not found and likely never to have existed since the early 1990s); (2) the unprecedented levels of post-war instability (not anticipated or planned for); (3) the level of funding needed to improve the antiquated and dilapidated state of Iraqi infrastructure and utility services (massively under-estimated); (4) the reliance on Iraqi oil production to bankroll everything and lower world oil prices (totally unrealistic given point [3]); (5) the role of Iraqi irregular forces and foreign fighters (not recognised until unprotected supply columns were ambushed, making it clear too few troops had been deployed to provide security – a problem that continues to this very day); and (6) having decided on invasion without the necessary post-war planning, the troops on the ground – and ordinary Iraqi’s caught in the crossfire – are reaping the whirlwind (claims of “mission accomplished” were completely premature).

All in all, a massive and continuing intelligence failure, and given the chaos reported daily by such fine journalists as Paul McGeough (Age-SMH) and John Burns (New York Times), it doesn’t look like improving anytime soon.

On these counts alone Howard deserves to be thrown-out of office at the earliest opportunity, not because the Iraqi adventure has turned out so badly, but because Howard could be so easily manipulated by a foreign power and a leadership cadre that is clearly unhinged. We should demand and expect a higher level of competence from our leaders. And … despite everything that has happened, it compounds a sorry situation when Howard won’t admit that he was completely and utterly wrong.

Nothing is his fault, there is always someone else to blame. At least David Kay could admit this basic fact. But Webdiary readers don’t need to be reminded of this Government’s abysmal record of ministerial accountability, where time-honoured parliamentary standards are seen as optional extras. To think we believed Keating was arrogant!

I don’t really care what Latham was told, by whom or where and when a meeting supposedly took place. What I found surprising is that Latham could claim to have been ‘informed’ by anyone remotely connected to or working for Australian intelligence and defence agencies. That’s the real problem, in that we are tied to American intelligence agencies and the strategic thinking which guides its information gathering activities – our own capabilities (particularly under-valued human intelligence) would be severely limited in this area. As a result, by having to rely on foreign intelligence agencies for information, we are compromised by their own political imperatives which demand adherence to the “official” line – i.e. everything in Iraq is going to plan.

It is only through people like Andrew Wilkie, Richard Clarke and a growing band of US State Department employees (who have resigned in protest) that we know how badly the intelligence was mis-used and how the public was manipulated. It’s the biggest case of political spin and deliberate subterfuge imaginable, and shows no sign of abating. Everything we’ve been told about Iraq has been a lie from day one, and the adequacy of the post-war planning severely compromised because of it.

So where to now?

Howard needs to be asked this question: How will we know when the job is done? A popular uprising against an unrepresentative, US backed Iraqi installed Government? These are scary days, and one look at the catalogue of death and injury appearing daily at lunaville makes the rosy predictions of a stable and secure Iraq look the stuff of fairy-tales.

And while there is some merit in Howard’s claim to “hold our nerve” until the “job is done”, the Australian public is asked to sign a blank cheque and trust a government whose judgment is questionable and its decision-making capacity compromised by the Howard-Bush relationship. I don’t think Howard has a clue about when our Iraqi commitment will end.

What are the options? I guess they come down to escalation (remember Vietnam?), keeping our current level of commitment or pulling our troops out completely (Latham’s way).

If Howard had the courage of his convictions we’d be deploying thousands of troops into Baghdad and beyond to secure the peace, but Latham is right – the current commitment is tokenistic at best. We comprise less then one half of one percent of total coalition forces deployed. That is, we’re not serious.

Howard claims that leaving by Christmas would give aid and comfort to the terrorists, but what happens if the attacks on coalition troops and civilian contractors are the work of Iraqis opposing the occupation? The American’s claim that it’s all the work of foreign terrorists, but where is the evidence? Have you seen one proven case, where a non-Iraqi has been detained, incriminating documents found or smuggled weapons seized?

The capture of Saddam was meant to break the will of disgruntled Baathists, but instead March has been the second worst month for US casualties. Every declared security ‘victory’ is met by something worse, a never-ending catalogue of death and destruction. If this is how we define victory, I’d hate to see us taste defeat.

The danger is that it’s become a low-level insurgency, where there is no organized resistance or coordinating figure (in terms of conventional warfare doctrines): most of the Saddam loyalists on the ‘deck-of-cards’ have turned out to be a pathetic bunch, incapable of doing the dirty and dangerous work themselves. So if it’s not them, then who? One answer could be that we’re on the long, slippery slope of having to fight those born and bred Iraqi’s opposed to the occupation, and then we will (eventually) find ourselves on the wrong side of the liberation equation.

We haven’t reached this point and it won’t happen overnight, but if the security situation doesn’t improve, then the majority of Iraqi’s are going to be looking for someone else to provide the answer to the myriad of problems that confront them (from a lack of jobs to mob rule).

Will we still be liberators when tear gas or rubber bullets have to be used to break-up ever larger demonstrations? More worryingly, what happens if the attacks aren’t coordinated at all, but the work of local groups or even individuals acting independently of one another (and for a host of reasons) all aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the occupation. The farmer who had his crops bulldozed, the father who loses a child in the crossfire, the cousin who gets detained for no reason …. and on it goes. In other words, a quagmire that cannot be resolved militarily, where almost every action to maintain order brings its own unpredictable dynamic. On a strategic level, Chalmers Johnson saw this as the “blowback” effect, but in Iraq it seems to be a street-level, community centred issue that cannot be so neatly categorised.

Yes, we helped overthrow a despotic and evil regime. Is the world a safer place? Maybe, maybe not – it may be years, possibly a decade before we know how things will play out – hardly the clear-cut promises made before the invasion. Heaven knows what types of “blowback” we’ve let ourselves in for, and this is what makes the whole situation extremely volatile and problematic.

Building an independent and capable intelligence capacity is now a priority – the least we can do is start making some informed choices. Because if the current trend of politicisation and interference in our security and defense services continue, we will be dangerously exposed, as fearless, dispassionate advice will be hard to come by and lives will be lost as a result. That may be the most terrible and unconscionable legacy of the Howard years.

In the meantime, I guess we’ll arm ourselves to the teeth and spend billions more on security and defence programs, while the foreign aid programs we actually need to take the recruitment heat out of the terrorism problem (by providing people with a future through fairer trade, cleaner drinking water, better health care and enough food to eat) will be grossly under funded. A recipe to screw all of our futures. Welcome to Howard’s way.

In an ironic twist, the only Iraqi we’ve managed to safely house and feed is Saddam Hussein and the other cronies in US custody. The rest of the population are at the mercy of armed gangs, a 15000 strong unregulated (read mercenary) security force and an increasingly trigger-happy occupation force. Unemployment is rampant, petrol is in short supply and basic services are problematic.

Latham got one thing right. It’s been a fiasco from start to finish, whenever that might be. But what really upset me was seeing the closing minutes of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer (SBS) and the faces, ages and hometowns of those American soldiers killed in Iraq: 603 and counting.

We’re not allowed to see the flag-draped caskets, we rarely see the terrible injuries of those maimed for life, but one can’t forget those who have been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in a conflict in search of a reason. Now we’ve been left with an insoluble problem, to leave or stay, and no clear idea which of these choices will make things worse.

***

Sue Bushell and Terry Embling

The question the media disingenuously skirted last week – and which should and must become the essence of the entire debate is: what is “the job” and when will it be done? Is it when enough Iraqi “insurgents/freedom-fighters/resisters/guerillas/”terrorists”, not to mention the innocent civilians unlucky enough to get in the way, have been killed or captured?

Is it when the toll of American and Coalition of the Willing soldiers, contractors and mercenaries gets too great for the American populace to bear? Is it when Howard wins the next election? Is it when “democracy” is “granted” to the Iraqis? (a dubious proposition, as anyone who have been watching the machinations of Paul Bremer and the Iraqi Governing Council as they work to hamstring any future Iraqi government will understand). For another take on why Australia should withdraw military as soon as possible read Dennis Rahkonen’s piece ‘Fallujah: Graveyard of the Bush presidency’.

Perhaps the job will be done when Haliburton’s profits start to peak? Or when foreign corporations have seized control of the Iraqi economy?

Naomi Klein makes clear just how little control a sovereign Iraqi government will have over the future of the nation under the Bushite’s vision for its future.

We highly recommend TomDispatch, where if you subscribe you have delivered into your mailbox, free, five days a week, some of the most thoughtful, incisive, germane commentary on the Bush Administration, US Imperialism, the US Occupation in Iraq and the war on terror to be found.

***

WHAT THIS WAR’S REALLY ABOUT

Chris Mardon

The story goes back much further than Kerryn Higgs suggests in Bush on the ropes: his awful deeds post S11, and the oil industry was influencing the US government long before Bush Jr. came along. The bookBlowback! by Chalmers Johnson points out that the imperious behaviour of the US is generating many future problems for itself, including terrorism.

The War on Afghanistan and the War on Terror have been portrayed in the media as responses to September 11, but the reality is different. The US was negotiating with the Taliban up to a few weeks prior to that event to secure their cooperation with neighbouring states in the construction and operation of oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan. The Taliban refused to cooperate on the terms demanded by the US, so the Americans threatened to destroy them. They have done just that!

As in Vietnam, they have replaced the government with one of their own choosing. The new president of Afghanistan and one of his colleagues in the new government are both former employees of Unocal, the US company that wants to build the pipelines. Moreover, while opium production had virtually ceased under the Taliban, it has taken off again, and armed struggles between members of the Northern Alliance have resumed, sometimes with unwitting US involvement.

The following 2001 report comes from an oil industry web site via Asia Times Online. The Brisard book was originally published in French, but has since been published in English. It refers to secret negotiations between the US and the Taliban that continued until August 2001, and were broken off when the US issued an ultimatum to the Taliban. The “carpet of gold” statement is crucial to the whole argument about what really happened and why we went to war in Afghanistan.

What most people do not seem to realise is that 9/11 was a response to that ultimatum! It did not come out of the blue, and the US knew that it was coming yet they did nothing to stop it. Why? It has provided a credible pretext for the War on Terror, the attacks on civil liberties, and the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq that they intended to carry out anyway if the governments concerned did not play ball. The US knows that world oil production is likely to reach a peak within the next few years, so they want to gain control of as much of the remaining oil reserves as they can by then.

The US has built a string of bases around Afghanistan to take effective control of the Central Asian region and prevent the Russians or the Chinese from exerting control there. They already had control of the Middle East, so they now control the area where about 70% of remaining oil reserves are located.

It is good to see some of the truth about 9/11 coming out, but I can assure you that there is still heaps to come! Incidentally, the Asian Development Bank is funding feasibility studies for the pipelines right now.

*

US policy on Taliban influenced by oil, 20-11-01

Under the influence of United States oil companies, the government of President George W Bush initially blocked intelligence agencies’ investigations on terrorism while it bargained with the Taliban on the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

In the book Bin Laden, la verite interdite (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), that was released recently, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) deputy director John O’Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

The authors claim that O’Neill told them that “the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it”. The two claim that the US government’s main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

They affirm that until August, the US government saw the Taliban regime “as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia” from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, says the book, “the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that.”

But, confronted with Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, “this rationale of energy security changed into a military one”, the authors claim. “At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'” Brisard said in Paris.

According to the book, the Bush administration began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. US and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a US expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of US intelligence organizations, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The last meeting between US and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for the US government, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad.

Brisard and Dasquie have long experience in intelligence analysis. Brisard was until the late 1990s director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, a French company. He also worked for French secret services, and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al-Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden.

Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy, available through the Internet. Brisard and Dasquie draw a portrait of the closest aides to Bush, linking them to the oil business. Bush’s family has a strong oil background, as do some of his top aides. >From Vice President Dick Cheney, through the director of the National Security Council Condoleezza Rice, to the ministers of commerce and energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have for long worked for US oil companies.

Cheney was until the end of last year president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for oil industry; Rice was between 1991 and 2000 manager for Chevron; Evans and Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.

Besides the secret negotiations held between Washington and Kabul and the importance of the oil industry, the book takes issue with the role played by Saudi Arabia in fostering Islamic fundamentalism, in the personality of bin Laden, and with the networks that the Saudi dissident built to finance his activities.

Brisard and Dasquie contend that the US government’s claim that it had been prosecuting bin Laden since 1998. “Actually,” Dasquie says, “the first state to officially prosecute bin Laden was Libya, on the charges of terrorism.” “Bin Laden wanted to settle in Libya in the early 1990s, but was hindered by the government of Muammar Gaddafi,” Dasquie claims. “Enraged by Libya’s refusal, bin Laden organized attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Gaddafi.”

Dasquie singles out one group, the Islamic Fighting Group (IFG), reputedly the most powerful Libyan dissident organization, based in London, and directly linked with bin Laden. “Gaddafi even demanded Western police institutions, such as Interpol, to pursue the IFG and bin Laden, but never obtained cooperation,” Dasquie says. “Until today, members of IFG openly live in London.”

The book confirms earlier reports that the US government worked closely with the United Nations during the negotiations with the Taliban. “Several meetings took place this year, under the arbitration of Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan,” says the book. “Representatives of the US government and Russia, and the six countries that border with Afghanistan were present at these meetings,” it says. “Sometimes, representatives of the Taliban also sat around the table.”

These meetings, also called Six plus 2, because of the number of states (six neighbours plus the US and Russia) involved, have been confirmed by Naif Naik, former Pakistani minister for foreign affairs. In a French television news program, Naik said that during a Six plus 2 meeting in Berlin in July, the discussions turned around “the formation of a government of national unity. If the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid. And the pipelines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come,” he added.

Naik also claimed that Tom Simons, the US representative at these meetings, openly threatened the Taliban and Pakistan. “Simons said, ‘either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use another option’. The words Simons used were ‘a military operation’,” Naik claimed.

This piece was first published in the Sun Herald today.

 

G’day. Whatever you think of the merits of Mark Latham’s decision to pull our soldiers out of Iraq by Christmas, it sure has Australians focused on the war and whether John Howard should have ordered an Australian invasion of Iraq without the support of the Australian people.

Webdiary readers were split on Latham’s policy and on whether it would hurt or enhance Labor’s cause. I’m angry with Latham for making Labor the story instead of nailing Howard on his appalling judgement in sending us to war and his unforgivable deceit of the Australian people about why. Still, Latham has created a political flashpoint.

David Redfearn in Melbourne wrote: “Howard is a high roller and now, for the first time, he is up against another one. I met Mark Latham and am enormously impressed. This is a very high stakes game and the only way to play it is to take some risks; something the ALP failed to do last time. My team is up six points at half-time but there are still another two quarters to go. It’s going to be a bloody long year.”

Susan Metcalfe in Byron Bay thought we should ignore the politics and concentrate on the substance. “It is bleeding obvious that Iraq is a fiasco and we shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Whether a few hundred men stay or go is hardly going to help or hinder the reconstruction of the country.”

Guido Tresoldi noted my fear that Latham’s momentum against Howard had stalled since his “troops out” stand, “but this is the risk you get with Latham”.

“His positive energy placed the Howard Government under pressure, but the flip side is that making statements on the run can bite him back. That is in his character, and it’s likely to happen again.”

Tony Dummett in Beecroft agreed: “Latham is setting the agenda, not letting Howard continually spook him from behind in the race. Most importantly, Latham is refusing to blink. Few on either side of politics have stared back at Howard lately, and it’s about time somebody did.”

Ben McDuff said Latham had deliciously wedged Howard on a security issue “and ensured Howard can’t pull a swiftie just before the election and welcome home our troops. Heaven forbid, the odds must be relatively high that this year there’ll be either deaths to Australian troops in Iraq or some kind of terrorist strike here in Australia. If the former occurs, where does that leave Howard? He can’t bring them home because that would show we’ve been ‘cowed by terrorists’?”

But Wesley Folitarik thinks Latham’s made a big mistake. “Even right-wing Australians now realise we were duped into Iraq by the US on weapons of mass destruction. But Australians collectively have a strong sense of taking responsibility for their actions; hence, most Australians support the Liberals in staying put and helping clean up the mess. Latham put security and terrorism back on the agenda then handed the microphone to Howard! Political suicide.”

Shaun O’Brien agreed: “Latham has taken a stance on the troops, and giving excuses such as the defence of Australia is not much different to the Coalition saying: ‘We are going to invade Iraq because of WMD’. Both were lies covering the real reason for their actions. Howard lied to keep the US on side and the alliance intact. Latham is doing it to keep the polls in his favour and get the ALP into government.”

Andrew Prentice was frustrated that The Sydney Morning Herald pollsters found that 61 per cent of Australians believed our soldiers should stay ‘until the job is done’.

“What exactly is ‘the job’? Capturing Saddam? We got him. Finding WMD? You can’t find what was never there. Preventing terrorism? Exactly how will occupying Iraq do that?”

Max Phillips thought the poll was seriously flawed. “A fair poll would have asked: ‘Should Australian troops continue their deployment in Iraq?’

“Asking an emotive, loaded question like should they stay until the job is done makes the answer meaningless. I’m surprised only 61 per cent said yes. If the SMH had asked, ‘Should Australian troops be cannon fodder for American imperial conquest?’ you’d get an equally meaningless answer.”

Max is right. The dispute of substance between Howard and Latham is about WHEN the job is done. Is our job done when the US gives us the nod, as usual? When Iraq is secure? After the Iraqi people elect their representatives? Stay tuned.

Noel Hadjimichael is Webdiary’s conservative columnist.

 

After reading Media don’t get it on Latham and Iraq, I feel I must reply to the misinformation campaign peddled by those who cannot accept that the Iraq deployment had and has sound economic, social justice, humanitarian and strategic value to Australia�s national interests. Enough is enough!

Mainstream Australia rejects any guilt or shame over having powerful allies, doing the job in Iraq, continuing the humanitarian and security mission commenced or pursuing our national interests. To do otherwise would be foolish and wrong.

When extremists use free speech to peddle misinformation, others must respond. Let’s look at some of the claims floating around and offer some reality:

Claim 1: All the main players are missing the point of the ADF deployment in Iraq and are blinded by �boys toys� bravado. The ADF projects Australia�s national policies. We were part of the Coalition of the Willing and have a moral/strategic responsibility to bring Iraq under UN-approved democratic rule with a minimum level of public safety. It would be a gutless government that pulled out now, leaving our key allies, the US and the UK, isolated.

Claim 2: The Howard government has acted in an despicable manner in involving public servants in political combat. Shock horror, Government fights Opposition hard. Voters know that the media will pick up the slimmest hint of difference to berate any government over leaks, division or scandal. The heroes of the Left like FDR, John Kennedy, Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating all played politics hard. This is not kindergarten rules.

Claim 3: Dead people have been dragged around the streets of Iraq by people traumatised by the threat of the US stealing land, oil and sovereignty. War produces brutality and pain. It also produces ideological liars and distorted truths. Are the insurgents freedom fighters or disgruntled advocates of anti-Western terror? I don’t believe the US has stolen any land or oil (Iraq�s new government has that covered). I believe the US would dearly like to hand over control to a sustainable sovereign state. Iraq is not a colony; it was a victim of a tyrannical despot.

Claim 4: Iraq suffered genocide due to Western policies over 12 years. Iraq suffered from a dictatorship that made its people suffer whilst the ruling class lived in splendour. The genocidal killings of Kurds and marshland Arabs were not the West�s doing. The trade embargo was a necessary constraint.

Claim 5: Aussie troops protect diplomats whilst they negotiate blood soaked trade deals. Show me the blood on wheat, technology and services agreements that will feed, skill and enhance the Iraq economy and its people.

Claim 6: The closure of our diplomatic mission in Iraq led to refugees on our doorstep. Travelling from Iraq to Ashmore Reef via illegal transactions at high cost is a hell of a strategy to get to Australia. Nice try to make ordinary Australians feel guilty about people smugglin, but it will not wash.

Claim 7: We have helped to murder 1 million innocents. Take a thousand Australians and read them that statement and 990 of them will reject that ugly and dishonest statement. Ten will believe any lie to feel good about being white, middle class, wealthy and radical in a world of poverty, discord and uncertainty.

What a week! Whatever else Latham did, he sure dragged the Iraq war onto centre stage in politics and lit a fire under it. There�s fire in the bellies of Webdiarists, too – with the added spice of a gender angle in our Iraq debate. Over to you, and have a good weekend.

 

The ten most read Webdiary entries in March were:

1. Why won’t Howard let us trust anyone? March 17

2. The American elections, the future of alliances and the lessons of Spain, March 15

3. Spain and Australia: the parallelsMarch 18

4. A rotten lousy disgrace, March 22

5. Whatever it takes: the Howard Government’s cash for comment play, March 24

6. Howard at end of credibility line on Iraq, March 16

7. Latham’s Iraq indiscretion ends honeymoon, March 30

8. Beware the leaky official, March 1

9. Anglo-democracy on trial, March 2

10. Is the government ethical? No comment, March 25

The top five referring web sites were antiwar, michaelmoore, spleenville, informationclearinghouse and roadtosurfdom.

What are Australia�s international obligations in Iraq? Don�t expect Howard to tell you � he didn�t give a shit about that when he illegally invaded. And don�t expect Labor to tell you either � it supported international law before the war, but seems to have trashed it in deciding to bring our soldiers home by Christmas regardless. John Littler writes that �Professor Thakur is technically wrong in Latham’s pullout plan breaches international law: academic�.

�For some reason no one seems to have explained, Australia is not on the UN list of invading powers in Iraq, hence even though morally we should uphold our ethical obligations under international law. Legally speaking, if the UN hasn’t named us we are not technically required to uphold the obligations of occupying powers, ie legally we can pull out any time we like and US and UK can’t. Not that legality bothered them going in, of course.�

Peter Green in Marrickville, Sydney responds to Tamas Calderwood�s outrage at my statement in Latham’s Iraq indiscretion ends honeymoon that �according to some, the CIA played a part in ousting Gough Whitlam”.

It would be outrageous to assert absolutely that the CIA played a part in the end of the Whitlam era, but that was not said. Rumours of CIA involvement have circulated almost since the day of the Dismissal and that one version of the story holds that the CIA began campaigning against the Whitlam Government well before the end. The theory was that it was the threat to US activities at Pine Gap, which triggered active US efforts to remove Whitlam.

I was finishing an undergraduate degree at Sydney University in 1975, and heard many theories as the academic year drew to a close.

US President Ford had a reputation as decent and rather inept, and the rumours had the CIA acting without close presidential supervision. However, it did appear that there was considerable unease among senior US officials and politicians over the perceived turn of the Australian Government in a “Communist” direction. One reason for the rumours was the US’s penchant for interfering in political processes worldwide – more often by clandestine methods than by direct action, which is why the CIA mostly acted without direct Presidential mandate. It made subsequent official denials more plausible.

And what would the American public have done, if their government had tried to interfere with an Australian election? If they disbelieved the denials, surely a little extra pink paint tipped on Gough would have brought the American public to their feet to cheer another victory for US democracy against the forces of world communism. Because, after all, the Americans are a deeply democratic people.

Personally, I doubt that the CIA had a great deal to do with the 1975 dismissal and the subsequent 1976 election because I doubt that they could have done anything effective and remained a hidden force. At most, they may have provided advice, encouragement and, indirectly, limited funds for the Coalition campaign.

***

NOTICEBOARD

For updates on Iraq, James Quest recommends Laura Flanders� radio show ‘Your call’ (see Naomi Klein ‘live from Baghdad’ on March 31) and democracy now, especially Robert Fisk�s �Most people dying in Iraq are Iraqis”.

AFP reports that 71 percent of Portuguese voters want Portugal�s 128 national guards in Iraq withdrawn, including a slim majority of ruling centre-right Social Democrats voters. Portugal sent troops to Iraq in November, where they operate in southern Iraq under British command.

***

WOMEN AND WEBDIARY

Harry Heidelberg

What is Susan Metcalfe on about? I never understand this whole gender thing. Didn’t we go through that debate on Webdiary in 2001 and say it didn�t matter? (See Webdiary women.)

I never think about what sex the contributors are. To me they are just people carrying on about stuff. What difference does it make if the contributor�s name is Paul or Pauline? How bizarre!

The only people who have a right to feel alienated from Webdiary are those to the right of centre because of the overwhelming left wing slant of the forum. Even those people shouldn’t feel alienated because I know you will give them a run if they have a coherent point to make.

People assume I am a man because my name is Harry but I could be a woman. My real name could be Harriette. Gender is relevant when we speak of gender specific topics but otherwise, I don’t get the relevance of gender and Webdiary contributions.

I get the feeling that Susan would like to contribute more often but feels so alienated by the men so she can’t. Susan, relax. I’d like to contribute LESS often but can’t tear myself away from it because I am over-engaged in it. I don’t care about anyone else; I just want to have my say. Is that a bloke thing?

*

Peter Whitford

I read Webdiary nearly every day and am used to the constant animosity between the sexes when gender related topics are discussed. But what on earth are these two women raving on about?

Susan Metcalfe: �After trying to read Latham’s troops recall: your say I�m feeling disconnected, alienated and unable to contribute to Webdiary within the parameters of this and many of your recent debates. I�m not entirely sure why, but I suspect the reasons are also connected to Webdiary having fewer contributions from women.�

Marilyn Shepherd: �Has Webdiary become an exclusive boy’s club debating the war in Iraq and missing the real story?�

Their arguments relevant to the topic show them to be intelligent, articulate people. Better bring back the entertaining, provocative, gender related topics, because these two are obviously in withdrawal.

*

Nick Garben in Narrabundah, ACT

Just a thought on why women aren’t participating in the commentary on Latham v Howard. Isn’t sport predominantly followed by men?

For a long time, politics has been primarily about winning a race. The most successful teams are the ones that have more people barracking for them.

I’m not blaming Latham. The biggest mistake Beazley made last series was not playing the ball. I thought then that the only way Labor could have won the Sept 11/ Tampa election would have been to have opposing policies.

Latham is right to recall the troops. Labor had a poor image on security anyway, so he won�t lose anything. At worst he’ll be seen as a bit of a goer. (I’m picturing a lumpy front-row forward barging up the middle of the ruck, and all the punters going “oouwh” as he cops an elbow in the head � or in Howard�s case, maybe a knee in the groin.)

Howard�s also doing the right thing by his team – pulling out the old “unAustralian if you don’t stick it out” move, sure to get the viewers heads nodding in appreciation (even if it doesn�t get their brains whirring with critical analysis � God forbid!)

This is mere sideline commentary as important to the real interests of the people in our nation as a call by Ray Warren. But that�s politics.

Or at least that�s part of politics. The other part is that these policies our present or future governments develop for mainly polemic purposes sometimes actually get implemented!

Here’s where Latham’s right for the right reasons. Australia should never have joined an unprovoked attack on another nation, even though it, like many others, was ruled by a despot. And we shouldn’t stick around there like shrapnel in a festering wound. (Repairing the devastation we’ve been party to by sending medical, engineering and financial aid is another matter.)

To our shame, Howard’s “I’m with America” policy resulted in Australia’s first and only offensive war. From the beginning the War stank of American imperialism and was always going to lead to an increased risk of terrorism.

One of the greatest crimes Howard has committed � along with his latent encouragement of racism and division in our society � has been sending of Australians to this war, and not only because of the wrongness of the war, the death and chaos it brought to innocent Iraqis, or the risk of our soldiers dying needlessly. He sent his fellow Australian to kill people, both the guilty and the innocent.

The effect on a person of having to do the deeds of war is well understood by those who fought in last century�s wars. At least in some of those a soldier had the conviction that what he did was for a worthy and unavoidable cause.

Even though it’s only a game here, politics in some places is deadly serious. So I�m barracking for Latham.

***

THE POLITICS OF OUR TROOPS

Sharon Burner

After June 30, with a sovereign Iraqi administration in place, the game will be very different. If Iraq is looking safer at the end of the year, the troop withdrawal will seem logical and Latham will get kudos. If Iraq has become a basket case, Latham�s criticisms will also seem justified.

Once an Iraqi administration is in place, Latham could go to Iraq and meet them regarding requests for our troops to stay, and could amend the ALP’s troop position by acting the statesman.

The single most important thing is for Latham not to back down or revert to crudity. In the back of my mind Tampa has been reverberating – Beazley attempted to ‘look tough’ by aping Howard, but in the electorate ‘toughness’ doesn’t turn upon substantive policy but presentation. If Latham backs down he’ll look like Beazley.

I think it’s possible that if Kim had said ‘no’ to Howard on Tampa he would have copped heat in the media (just as Latham is now over the troops) but the message ‘I stick to my guns’ would have been set in the voters minds. What did people remember? ‘Flip flop’ and ‘no ticker’.

Latham’s foreign policy address this month will demonstrate that the ALP is going to run an Australia first foreign policy – ‘WE decide where our troops go, and the terms in which they go’. Ring any bells?

*

Antonio Yegles

Your stand on the issue of the week took me a bit by surprise. Et tu Margo?

I thought the press was again reacting all too predictably to the drumming up of a sideshow by Howard on the qualified comments by Latham on the troop pullout of Iraq. The Canberra Press Gallery hacks are desperate to get the kudos to be the first to call the end of Latham’s honeymoon. They went all out. They went big. They missed the bigger story.

Howard’s agenda was to attack Latham on foreign affairs by alleging he cannot be trusted to lead the country as he makes policy on the run without briefings and consultation. Yet the issue is straightforward. If you look at what the two sides have in common you realise that:

1. Both want the troops home as soon as practicable.

2. Both have made or are making references to time lines.

3. Both agree that the troop withdrawal should not happen before the hand over of sovereignty.

The differences are under what circumstances this should happen. Howard says when the job is done, whatever that means. Latham says when Australia’s obligations have been fulfilled, hopefully by Christmas.

Howard saw his best chance to nail Latham. With the polls behind him, he went all out and yet again totally overplayed his hand.

Surely Latham is allowed to state his position on Iraq as Opposition Leader without being attacked like this. It a ludicrous argument to say that Latham’s position plays into the hands of the terrorists. What, more than actually taking our country into an illegal war under false pretences to curry favour with the US? This is desperate politics from a desperate man.

There is an interesting pattern emerging here. The Howard Government has frequently used emotive labels such as terrorists to smear their opponents. Remember the Reith/Howard links between refugees and terrorists after 9/11? (See The end of multiculturalism?)And the anti-war is pro-Saddam line? Now the Iraq pullout is pro al Qaeda. I suppose in Howard’s world being called U.S. deputy sheriff brings him not ridicule and hatred but kudos in our region.

In Howard’s World the war on Iraq made the world safer, brought democracy to the Middle East, fixed the Israel/Palestinian issue and brought us a lucrative Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and lucrative contracts in Iraq. What an idyllic world Howard lives in. Is he bordering on dementia? No wonder the bombings in Madrid upset this beautifully constructed world. Politically the most damaging line was from Keelty, that the Iraq war increased the risk to this country.

The contrast to last year could not be greater. Howard was the man of steel, Teflon man, untouchable and unbeatable. A master politician at the top of his power. He was above politics and above the Governor-General. Within a few months of Latham�s election, Howard�s World has fallen apart. He is panicking.

This was best illustrated by this weeks� shenanigans in Parliament. The all conquering all-powerful Howard threw everything he had at Latham and failed even to land a serious blow. On the contrary, he was wrong on Labor Party policy and wrong on the nature and substance of Intelligence briefings by the Opposition Leader. Howard, the master politician, took on apprentice Latham and Latham trounced him.

Latham�s first big test, his baptism of fire, has shown a man who fights best with his back to the wall. He turned disadvantage into advantage by his logic, arguments and charisma. Latham is a true leader who can withstand serious pressure.

If Latham actually planned what eventuated this week by pre-empting Howard on Iraq, ATSIC and Baby bonus, he is on the way to becoming a master politician. He is more than a match to Howard. And that is an achievement. The honeymoon is over because the gloves are off. Bring it on!

*

Tony Kevin

“As Mr Howard insisted the troops must stay, he said an Australian Army officer would play a key role in coordinating the fight against Iraqi insurgents. Major-General Jim Molan will take up a position later this month as deputy for operations for the multinational force coalition. He will be the most senior Australian officer in Iraq, responsible for planning missions to find and destroy terrorist cells, patrol areas from which anti-aircraft missiles may be fired and provide protection to the Iraqi and coalition community.” Today’s Canberra Times.

So the little chap, helped by his obliging Washington buddies, is up to his old tricks again. In his obsessive lust to hang onto Australia�s prime ministership at any cost, our little mate is again trying to rack up the national testosterone level and lead with OUR chins.

Australians don�t see through Howard. We don�t see the simple truth of what Whitlam helped us to understand 40 years ago, after so much blood had already been spilled in Vietnam, that persistence in folly is no virtue. A new generation of Australians needs to relearn that truth.

We don�t want to see what Howard is doing in his national security politics – making all of us his hostages and making some of us his victims. We have all the facts available to us, but we don�t want to register them.

We know Howard�s senior ministers ignored three well-founded security alerts and issued no warnings to our Bali holiday-makers.

We know that Howard instructed the ADF to help plan the US invasion, many months before he told us. We know he secretly ordered our SAS in to fight in Iraq, only 12 hours into a declared 48 hour ultimatum period, contrary to all the laws of war, and that he hid this fact from us for 10 months afterwards.

We know that he set up early high-risk combat roles for our ADF so that it would not have to take part in the messy post-invasion phase but could honourably rest on its combat laurels and go home.

We know that as the US occupation came under increasing military pressure, he has gradually totally reversed that position over the past 12 months, to the point that we are now to play a key role in coordinating the fight against Iraqi insurgents.

We know all those things, yet we encourage our media to continue to trivialise and misrepresent the important issues: that Australian soldiers should not be in Iraq, that we have no right in international law to have occupying troops there, and that the time to leave is now, before any of our people die in battle with Iraqi insurgents seeking to liberate their country from American occupation.

We courteously continue to give this man the benefit of our doubts. We let him pontificate about our national values and we fondly pretend that there is a “real issues” debate going on now between Howard and Latham on the Iraq War. Some of us comment that Howard might be “holding his own” in this debate, or even “starting to win back a bit of ground”.

We get lost in the detail of who said what to whom, and we let the issue be falsely framed for us again.

***

WHAT IS IN AUSTRALIA’S INTERESTS?

David Eastwood in Sydney

There appear to be two main arguments as to whether we withdraw our troops from Iraq or not:

1. We have a moral responsibility to �get the job done� because we went in there in the first place.

2. We should stop supporting an illegal invasion and cut and run before Iraq becomes a quagmire.

The first argument is attractive; it speaks to a nation�s need to take responsibility for its actions. �Sure, we shouldn�t have gone in, but we did, and now that we�ve made a mess we should clean it up.�

This argument doesn�t stack up. Our force in Iraq is a token force, as it was in the war. Our troops are not in the front line, they are precious few in number and they perform duties best described as �back office�. This is not to denigrate their contribution � no doubt they are carrying out their assignments peerlessly.

We�re �half pregnant� � there, kinda sorta, but not really – because our troops are there as political pawns. Politicised again. Their practical contribution has to be trivial, their numbers and roles ensure that.

No, their presence allows the US government to claim that Australia, promoted in the field to a significant sovereign state, is with them in this campaign, thus helping justify the whole episode. But, if we really were serious about this, surely our troops would be far more numerous and far more substantially engaged, like in the first Gulf war, like Afghanistan.

It suits our government to be half pregnant. It would not take many body bags to have voters clamouring for withdrawal. The government needs our troops protected as it knows their role is domestically contentious, so it�s part of the quid pro-quo.

Cut to just before the war, and the crucial phone call: �John, if you send in a contingent we can point to we�ll guarantee to keep �em safe, and as icing on the cake, we�ll throw in a free trade agreement you can point to as proof of the benefit of the US alliance. But wait, there�s more, you get to strut the world stage as part of the Coalition of the Willing.�

Let�s swallow that argument. What we need to do is get pregnant. Let�s make a real contribution. Troops, battalions of them. Planes, ships, tanks, Eddie Maguire, the whole catastrophe. If we are going to clean the mess up we surely have a moral duty to make a real and substantive contribution. Mr Howard, over to you.

The moral stream of the second argument is pointless. We did support the war, and now are enmeshed, albeit minimally, in the mess left behind. It�s already a quagmire. More troops have dies since the war �finished� than during it, surely the Key Performance Metric. If there are kooks out there looking for an excuse to finger Australia as an enemy of Islam and a terrorist target for overturning Saddam�s secular regime, they�re on a winner.

Surely also it�s only a matter of time until an Australian is killed in Iraq, then another, then another. What�s the point? What practical difference will it make to the end game and the welfare of the Iraqi people if we pull out? Surely too the risk of �collateral terrorism� just mounts as we stay there?

*

Phil Webb in Miranda, NSW

A year ago we were told that the “job” was to eliminate the weapons of mass distraction in our “war on terror”, despite the absence of links between Iraq and September 11 – the event which instigated the Western version of “jihad”.

We can’t find the weapons, and senior officials have all but admitted they are not going to find them. So the job IS done.

The restructuring of Iraq was never part of the original Australian brief for a non UN sanctioned invasion, so what “job” is it that Australian taxpayers are meant to continue funding and Australian soldiers are meant to be putting their lives on the line for? The installation of Western style democracy in a land that has just been smashed to pieces by Western forces?

We weren’t told that in the beginning. It became the “task du jour” as soon as it became apparent that the lack of WMD would cause some red faces on both sides of the pond. Whilst political pinball is played with ordinary Australian people, these facts remain:

* We haven’t found what we originally went in there for

*We haven’t found Osama bin Laden in Iraq (or anywhere else)

* We have killed more than 9,000 Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11

* We have lost more than 400 coalition lives * We will be asked to put our hands in our pockets and chip in for the rebuilding by US appointed contractors of US destroyed Iraqi infrastructure The whole thing is a Monty Python sketch with an evil makeover. Meanwhile, Latham and Howard furiously debate over whether “home by Christmas” means home by Christmas full stop or home by when the undefined “job” is done. Not on the basis of whether it’s in the best interests of Australia and the Australian people (or the Iraqi people), but on the basis of political jockeying as to who presents the best “holier than thou” image in the run up to an election. And we let them get away with it time and time again. As the saying goes, “History has to keep repeating itself because we just don’t listen”.

***

THE BIG PICTURE

Simon Martin

I read Webdiary every day and am amused, angered, touched, incensed, pleased or annoyed by it. It is always topical with points of view that get left behind in the mainstream media. I�ve been reading all the pieces recently regarding Iraq, troop withdrawal and WMDs, and they�ve got me thinking of the bigger picture.

Who are the people benefiting from the War on Terror, and from the policy of the Bush Administration? The answer depends on the lens through which you view this conflict.

History is littered with leaders who raped their country’s wealth to sustain their own and their cronies� wealth and life style at the expense of their citizens. We need look no further than Saddam, for evidence of this. We all know the familiar story of people who amass riches through pillaging a country’s economy and resources.

Is the current policy of the Bush Administration any different, in its ends, to the policies of such leaders? We see a U.S. budget deficit of something like $700 billion, and for what? So that Dick Cheney’s mates at Halliburton can gain contracts in Iraq worth $22 Billion? So that there will be massive amounts of spending on research and development of new battle field weapons and that Bush’s major campaign donors from McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing will have huge amounts of government money pouring into their armaments accounts?

Who is paying for all this? American taxpayers are footing the bill, and the children of America will be paying off the massive interest bills on government loans to fund the difference between tax receipts and government spending.

Bush and his neo-cons are taking the current and future earnings of the country and tipping it into the coffers of the major donors to the Republican Party. This makes Bush a very powerful man and the heads of these companies (and their shareholders) much richer at the expense of Americans who can�t afford health insurance, their own home, or even to put food on the table.

***

MEDIA BIAS?

Phil Kendall

What we need is a “bias recognition kit”. We heard Peter Thompson on ABC Radio National today start a question with “How embarrassing is it…?”

This encapsulates the assumption that something was embarrassing, an assumption Thompson should *not* be making (the ABC is powered by *our* dough and it’s gotta be impartial).

Thompson’s “embarrassing” statement is logically equivalent to “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Thompson is a shameless & continuous serial offender. But you know as well as I that there are LOTS of his ilk! We need to start naming and shaming

 

Lone Manu Island asylum seeker, Aladdin Sisalem. Photo courtesy of Olivia Rousset

Related:  Manus Island’s lone asylum seeker

Olivia Rousset, SBS Dateline: “There’s someone who for seven months has been alone and has had two visitors in that time and is slowly going mad from that experience. Do you feel sorry for him as a refugee who’s tried for two years to get asylum in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia and has found himself in this detention centre all alone not knowing what’s going on?”

Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Immigration: “With respect, I might have some different information from that what you have, and no, I cannot say I have any sorry for Mr Sisalem’s position.”

Rousset: “You don’t feel sorry for a stateless refugee?

Vanstone: “You’ve just asked me a question and I’ve answered it.”

Asylum seekers were all over the media a few years ago. And then, almost as suddenly as David Marr and Marian Wilkinson’s expose of the Tampa incident, Dark Victory, disappeared from the national agenda, refugees were rarely featured in our papers or on our screens.

At the Australian Independent Documentary Conference in February 2004, leading human rights lawyer Julian Burnside explained how Australia was committing crimes against humanity, “when judged by our own laws.” Didn’t read about this? It’s unsurprising, as Burnside explained:

“I first came across this analysis earlier in the year and I made these observations at a speech in Melbourne on World Refugee Day. Someone from The Age newspaper was present and asked me for a copy of the analysis. I spoke of other things as well, but they asked for a copy of the analysis of Section 268.12 just to make sure I wasn’t taking a lend of them. I sent it through and you can see it’s very simple and it can be compressed onto less than an A4 sheet. I didn’t see anything about it in the newspaper the next day. A couple of days later I got a phone call from this journalist, rather shame-faced he seemed, and he apologised that he hadn’t used the material but explained his editor did not think it was interesting. It is not interesting that our most senior political leaders are engaged in a crime against humanity when judged by our own laws. How do we ever get to that position, I wonder?”

You may have heard about Aladdin Sisalem. He, better than any, highlights the absurdity, criminality and indecency of our government’s policy. He is the only person detained on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, caught between Australian governmental intransigence, populist posturing and outright bloody-mindedness. “I’m really in need for the help to be, immediately, removed from here and resettled in a third, safe country,” Aladdin told me this week. “I need to belong to a country that can protect me and where I can live a normal, dignified and productive life.”

His personal background reads like a classic refugee story. He was born in Kuwait in 1979 to a Palestinian father and Egyptian mother. During the first Gulf War in 1991, Palestinians living in Kuwait were accused of siding with Saddam, and subsequently persecuted and humiliated. (This situation was primarily due to Yasser Arafat meeting with Saddam and expressing support for his regime.) Life became unbearable in Kuwait and after failing to gain refugee status in Egypt, Aladdin decided to try his luck on the other side of the world. After arriving in Jakarta on a forged tourist visa (and living on the streets for nine months) and being refused refugee rights by the UNHCR, he trekked through dense jungle to Papua New Guinea. They also refused Aladdin his entitled rights, placed him in jail and allegedly beat him badly. By December 2002, he had taken a small boat to Australia, landing on Thursday Island, “to seek asylum [and] avoid losing my life or even my future.” Expecting his nightmare to end, instead the Howard Government was fully enforcing their draconian Pacific Solution and he was soon flown back to PNG and placed in the newly erected Manus Island detention centre. He was not alone, however, with around 150 other asylum seekers living in the camp.

Aladdin thought his case for asylum was being processed by Australian immigration officials but was soon informed of his predicament. “They claimed I did not ask specifically for an application form by name and number”, says Aladdin, “while I did repeatedly verbally request asylum in Australia.” He has been living alone for the past seven months. Positively Kafkaesque is the only way to describe his situation. The UNHCR has since confirmed Aladdin’s refugee status but the Minister for Immigration, Amanda Vanstone, says Australia has no responsibilities to bring him to the mainland for resettlement. “The last person there is not an asylum seeker, he’s been granted refugee status by the UN, and is not the responsibility of the Australian government”, she says. It is now becoming clear why John Howard appointed Vanstone to replace Phillip Ruddock in the Immigration portfolio. Both are inflexible, harsh, illogical and bureaucratic to a fault.

Remarkably, however, Aladdin has been housed in a refugee centre for 15 months with internet access, a gym and a cat for company called Honey. His mental state is diminishing due to his loneliness and lack of a clear future. Indeed, Olivia Rousset from SBS Dateline is only the second person to visit Aladdin in seven months. Rousset’s story contained more humanity and depth than virtually all the print and TV coverage of the last six months. And all for one simple reason: she was there, seeing the situation with her own eyes. While some media outlets have covered this story, it is shameful that virtually none have deemed it important to send a reporter to accurately document the actions of our government. Media access was difficult at one stage, but PNG allowed Rousset with few conditions. Have any other journalists even tried?

Aside from the gross human rights abuse being committed, is it not essential to document the $1.4 million of taxpayer’s money to feed, house and imprison one man? There is no question that aid packages and other financial incentives exist between PNG and Australia, though Australia knows that many Pacific islands are so cash strapped that they will accept what is essentially a bribe to keep Australia’s refugee “problem” away from prying journalists and human rights groups. This is even more reason why the media should be pursuing the story. Aladdin is but one piece of the dirty little secret known as the Pacific Solution, as we currently know little about the economic details of this Howard Government policy. It is imperative that enquiring minds are employed to investigate what Amanda Vanstone calls “the most effective deterrent to people smugglers that we have been able to find.” Clearly, humanity doesn’t enter the equation.

***

“The day in my life I would like to mention”, Aladdin said this week, “is the day when I arrived in Australian Thursday Island, where I, for the first time since my childhood, felt the meaning of the safety that I was close to forget because of years of fear and suffering. It was the day when I thought it was the end of my nightmare. Unfortunately, I was wrong and this day was the beginning of the suffering that I never imagined before.”

The mainstream media has certainly highlighted Aladdin’s plight. The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, 7.30 Report, West Australian, The Sunday Telegraph, The Australian and Channel 7 are just some of the organisations that have covered the absurdity of Manus Island. But it took the UK Guardian‘s journalist, David Fickling, to offer this assessment of the situation on February 12, 2004: “The amount of money spent keeping Manus Island open would pay unemployment benefits for all of the detainees in Manus, Nauru and Port Hedland, if they were allowed into Australia.” Fickling was unafraid to highlight the real reason why PNG continues to allow Manus to remain open – “promised aid”. Why is this real relationship so difficult for much of the mainstream media to place in context?

The Pacific Solution strikes at the heart of our democracy. With generous financial offers, Australia has essentially bought many struggling Pacific islands, many of which, including Nauru, have been pillaged in years past by Australia. The essential buying of our poor neighbours diminishes our reputation in the region. When countries become fearful and reliant on Australian handouts, respect and admiration will never be achieved.

Shadow Minister for Immigration, Stephen Smith, has made some encouraging signs that the Labor Party would abolish both the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres. Though it should be noted that many aspects of the ALP’s refugee policy are as draconian as the Liberals, such as the desire to constantly talk about notions of “border protection.” It is supposedly now politically expedient for both major parties to talk about such issues in the language of oppression. Our coastline needs to be monitored, to be sure, but it is important to keep in mind that even before Howard’s “deterrent” measures, no more than 4000 unauthorised arrivals ever landed on our shores, most of whom were escaping despotism in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does the ALP know something we don’t? And are they suggesting that a massive influx of asylum seekers would suddenly appear over the horizon if policy were loosened? Getting tough on the major issues of the day, including refugees and terrorism, may give Mark Latham some much needed political capital (and theoretically neutralise the Liberal’s “strengths” on national security), but it fundamentally undercuts his desire for a more inclusive community. And why can’t we ask this question: why do we want to deter people from coming to Australia in the first place? Who is really threatened by a few thousand people coming from lands our noble country has “liberated” since 2001?

ALP refugee policy, decided at their January national conference, may be an improvement on Kim Beazley’s gutlessness at the 2001 election (when he caved into Howard’s draconian measures), but no ALP spokesperson can say with an ounce of honesty that many of the proposals they will be taking to this year’s federal election are anything other than watered down Howard policy. I wait for the day when the ALP adopts Julian Burnside’s proposal of “initial mandatory detention for no longer than one month.” Barring health or security risks, the person would be released into the community, given an interim visa, “permitting the holder to work and to be eligible for all relevant benefits.” When was the last time you read serious discussion about nuts and bolts refugee policy in our mainstream media? Rather, it’s frequently framed around an official position of the major political parties, rather than a larger, above politics, debate.

As the ALP’s new progressive President, Carmen Lawrence has a long way to go to convince those wavering voters, many who moved to vote Green in 2001, that her party has really the fate of refugees in mind, rather than party political gain. Pledging to take children out of detention and abolish the Pacific Solution are two welcome changes, however, and should be applauded. But what else can you offer, Latham?

***

“As the UNHCR is always informing me, I do not have the right to choose which country I would like to live in”, says Aladdin, “but as most of the refugees were taken by New Zealand, I really wish to live in that country.” (The Age‘s Michael Gordon reported last week on the happy outcome for some Tampa refugees in NZ.) “I am fit and healthy and have a good trade as a very experienced car mechanic”, continues Aladdin. “I can read, write and speak English. I would work hard in my trade and be a productive member in a good society.” All Australians should receive Aladdin’s cries for decency and fairness with shock. Senator Vanstone can, and has, made humanitarian exceptions in exceptional refugee cases. In November 2003, the minister granted a visa to Ebrahim Sammaki, giving his wife’s death in the Bali bombings as reason enough. John Howard, however, couldn’t resist a grotesque media opportunity and was shown holding hands with the hands of the couple’s children. Aladdin Sisalem should be another such exception.

Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph wrote on February 15 that with the cost the Australian taxpayer is paying for Aladdin’s daily upkeep, “Sydney’s Park Hyatt said for $7000 a night it could make available its Diplomatic suite with a security guide on the door. The 145 sqm luxury hotel apartment boasts four private balconies and a marble bathroom. With a touch of a remote-control button, guests can open the curtains and enjoy from the king-sized bed panoramic views of the Harbour Bridge and Opera House.”

Aladdin’s lawyer, Eric Vadarlis told Olivia Rousset: “I think we need to go back a step and figure out how Aladdin got there [to Manus Island]. Aladdin didn’t buy a ticket to Manus Island – he was taken there by the Australian government. Specifically taken and dumped there. So whose problem is he? So is the Australian government into the slave trade? Do they pick people up and take them to Manus Island and leave them there and say they are someone else’s problem?” At this stage, it appears Minister Vanstone is saying exactly that – not our problem.

FURTHER READING

A powerful Age editorial on Aladdin’s plight from February 2004.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/12/1076548159085.html

Aladdin has his own weblog, organised by Matt Hamon of http://www.hopecaravan.com :

http://www.hopecaravan.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=3

Julian Burnside’s speech from the Independent Documentary Conference in February 2004:

http://www.aidc.com.au/PDFs/AIDC-2004/speech.pdf

The Guardian‘s report on Manus Island and Aladdin:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,12070,1146194,00.html

SBS Dateline report by Olivia Rousset on Aladdin’s plight (March 31, 2004):

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php3?archive=1&artmon=3&arty=2004

***

Thanks to Aladdin Sisalem, Olivia Rousset, Sophie McNeill, Matt Hamon and Verity Leatherdale for assistance on this story.

aloewenstein@f2network.com.au

Debate on Iraq is seriously rocking Canberra. Is Latham�s high-risk confrontation on the troops a winning card or a losing hand? Has Howard come a cropper by leaning on public servants to improperly finger Latham?

 

Webdiarist Max Phillips points out that the SMH poll question was seriously flawed. The question, Should our troops stay in Iraq �until the job is done�, begs the question in dispute: When is the job done?

Max writes:

�I don’t know what the agenda of the Herald editors is exactly, but that poll they commissioned was rubbish, bordering on push-polling. A fair poll would have asked “Should Australian troops continue their deployment in Iraq?”. Asking an emotive and loaded question like “should they stay until the job is done” makes the answer meaningless. I’m surprised only 65% answered yes to that question. If the Herald had asked, “Should Australian troops be cannon fodder for American imperial conquest?”, you’d get an equally predictable answer that would tell you very little about people’s real attitudes.�

I�m surprised that neither Latham nor the media has yet pressured Howard to define what he sees as �the job� to be done. After an election in Iraq? When Iraq is secure? When the Yanks give permission for our troops to come home?

Good stuff from Webdiarists today, including complaints that Webdiary is off the rails and overrun by men, and some big hits on my opposition to pulling out our soldiers when transitional �sovereignty� is transferred to U.S. appointed Iraqi �representatives� on June 30.

My favourite email so far is from David Redfearn: in Northcote, Victoria:

Howard is a high roller and now, for the first time, he is up against another one. I have now met Mark Latham and I am enormously impressed. This is a very high stakes game and the only way to play it is to take some risks; something, for better or for worse, the ALP failed to do last time. To use a footy metaphor, my team is up six points at half time but there are still another two quarters to go. It’s going to be a bloody long year.

And here’s a request for info from Tamas Calderwood in London:

You have written another provocative piece, which I much enjoyed reading, however, there is a point which I must take you up on. You say: “And remember 1975, when, according to some, the CIA played a part in ousting Gough Whitlam?”

That is an outrageous comment. What evidence do you have to support this claim? Do you suggest President Ford ordered this or was the CIA acting alone (under the leadership of George HW Bush)? Are you saying the 1975 election did not represent the will of the Australian people? And what would the consequences have been if America was found to be interfering with a key democratic ally in the midst of the Cold War?

I lived in America for over three years and found it a wonderful, deeply democratic society. An imperfect one, to be sure. But I know Americans would have been just as outraged as Australians if their government had tried to interfere with an Australian election. Do you really think the government of the most democratic country in the world is so out of control – and has been for so long?

***

NOTICEBOARD

John Boase writes: �I have just encountered the work of Jessica Stern of Harvard University � brilliant. See her articles on al Qaeda and Pakistan at The protean enemy and Pakistan’s Jihad Culture. Anyone reading them will see that Iraq is a sideshow and that ‘Whack and thump’ won�t work. Her message is not the one the Bushies or John Howard don�t want to hear, more’s the pity.�

I recommend Globalisation and terror by Helena Norberg-Hodge, a director of a fabulous NGO called the International Society for Ecology and Culture. She writes:

�To really understand the rise in religious fundamentalism and ethnic conflict we need to look at the deep impacts of what might be described as the jihad of the global consumer culture against the diversity of living cultures on the planet. Doing so not only allows us to better understand the September 11 tragedy, but to see a way forward that lessens violence on all sides.�

Tony Kevin has reviewed the play on the unthrown children inquiry at See this play. It�s on in Sydney at the Performance Space, 199 Cleveland Street, Redfern, until April 11. Bookings 02 9698 7235, inquiries 0411 330 654.

***

WHAT�S WITH YOU BLOKES?

Susan Metcalfe

After trying to read Latham’s troops recall: your say I�m feeling disconnected, alienated and unable to contribute to Webdiary within the parameters of this and many of your recent debates.

I�m not entirely sure why, but I suspect the reasons are also connected to Webdiary having fewer contributions from women.

Why we are having this debate at all? It is bleeding obvious that Iraq is a fiasco and we shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Whether a few hundred men stay or go is hardly going to help or hinder the reconstruction of the country.

Where are our priorities? The creation of a more peaceful Iraq does not hinge on Australia’s continuing military presence or absence. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think anyone noticed us pulling out of Afghanistan.

Why are the contributions from our media and on forums like this one so reductive and reactionary? It�s such a waste of time for the media and politicians to engage in endless debate and opinion pieces on the subject, elevating such crap to a level of such �importance�. Thousands of words take us further into the mire of superficial political manoeuvring.

Whatever happened to calling a spade a spade? When the politicians shout we don’t always have to jump. Where is the vision?

Why do we need a military presence in Iraq? What is the issue here? If we are genuinely concerned for Iraq to get back on its feet, then our contribution and our responsibility to Iraq is surely not measured by the numbers or presence of our military. Peace building and reconstruction have a far wider scope than the employment of military resources.

I’ll keep checking Webdiary, but I�d really like to hear from other women on why they are not contributing.

***

Marilyn Shepherd

Has Webdiary become an exclusive boy’s club debating the war in Iraq and missing the real story?

One of the boys got the point – just one. Latham has done Howard on this and the behaviour of the government gets more and more despicable.

Howard�s endless abuse of the public service and defence forces and of the spooks – still under investigation – sums up his attitude. The short chap thinks he is king and we his mere subjects.

Last night in Iraq dead people were hauled through the streets, hung and beaten by Iraqis who don’t want the U.S. stealing their land, their oil and their sovereignty. How long before enraged Iraqis raid the pretty palace next to the airport who discover that Australia locks up Iraqi refugees?

Think about it – for the last 12 years we have been shoulder to shoulder with the US and Brits while genocide has been committed on the Iraqi people. Why would they thank us? Why would they want us in Iraq?

Could someone answer this simple question: If 850 troops coming home won’t make us safer why does keeping them in Iraq make them or us safer? Some of your correspondents sound like they are in kindergarten playground.

Each day our soldiers are in Iraq they are exposed to the deadly affects of depleted uranium used by the US. Will Howard help them when they are ill? Considering this nation�s disgraceful treatment of the kids who were forced to go to Vietnam and were bombed with Agent Orange, I don�t think so.

They face cluster bombs in almost every suburb – are they cleaning them up so the kids of Iraq don’t have their limbs blown off? No, they are protecting diplomats while they negotiate blood soaked trade deals.

For 12 years the mission was closed and for 7 of those years any Iraqi nationals who needed help from us was denied diplomatic assistance and forced to run for their lives, to be treated like criminals for “jumping the queue” we closed.

Realistically there are plenty of soldiers in Iraq and they don’t need ours. They need millions in food, water supply repairs, jobs, electricity – they need the money to do it themselves.

We are treating the educated and intelligent Iraqis like peasants from the mountains of Afghanistan, which has fallen into total disaster.

Grow up Australia’s boys, we had no bloody right to act as judge, jury and executioners in Iraq and we have helped to murder over 1 million people already. Enough is enough.

***

ON THE FENCE

Guido Tresoldi in Brunswick, Melbourne, ALP member

One thing that I really like about Webdiary and your columns is that sometimes I am surprised at your ideas and opinions.

One of these was your piece Latham’s Iraq indiscretion ends honeymoon. When someone more progressive than the ALP in many instances castigates Latham because he wants the troops back in Australia I take notice.

I do agree with you on that Latham moving on foreign policy is moving on territory that the conservatives are seen as being better than the ALP, and perhaps forcing Rudd to defend a position he was not comfortable with.

I also agree somewhat that the talk about ‘defending Australia’ was populist, however Latham is fighting a Prime Minister that made populism an art form.

Latham is trying to win on Howard�s turf, and at least Latham�s �scare mongering� as you call it, is about a terrorist threat that does exist (despite Howard denying this and shutting up those bureaucrats who disagree). It is more honest that scare mongering about asylum seekers using latent racism.

My strongest disagreement is with:

�As Howard rightly said speaking to his motion in the House of Representatives today that troops should not be withdrawn before the job is done, that would mean hauling back our troops from East Timor and the Solomons too. Stupid.�

There is a substantial difference between Iraq and the other two examples. The troops in East Timor and the Solomons are there at the invitation of the government of those countries; they are not forces of occupation that have contributed to a war waged using lies. In East Timor our troops are there under the auspices of the United Nations.

You write:

�Is Latham really saying the danger to Australia is so acute that we need 850 troops to join the 51,0000 troops stationed in Australia?�

But you can also argue, �Is Howard really saying the need in Iraq is so acute that we need 850 troops to join the thousands of troops at the USA disposal?�

We are not needed in Iraq because the USA needs extra personnel. We are there to contribute to a charade from the Bush administration that the troops stationed in Iraq are somehow �multinational�.

The position that once the Iraqis have their own government �our job is done� is perfectly acceptable. The United States created this mess and they are now realising the enormity of their folly. Yes, we were an invading force. Yes, we have obligations under the fourth Geneva Convention. But once the Iraqis have their country back we don’t necessarily need soldiers there to help.

The reason why Iraq may need military personnel longer than expected is precisely because the folly of Bush and co has attracted murdering fanatics from everywhere. We should help, but not as part of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’.

Australia should do what the new Spanish government has done � say its troops may remain if US forces to contribute under to UN military force to rebuild Iraq. (MARGO: That�s what I reckon!) This should include Arab countries to undermine al-Qaeda propaganda that western forces occupy a Muslim country.

I detect at the end of your article anger towards Latham that he stuffed up. (MARGO: You�re right there!) You fear that he had momentum against Howard and it may unravel. But this is the risk you get with Latham. His positive energy placed the Howard government under pressure, but the flip side is that making statements on the run can bite him back.

That is in his character, and it is likely that it may happen again. Yes, we have to accept that Latham support in the electorate may evaporate, as it did with Beazley last time.

***

MARGO, YOU�VE LOST IT

Tony Dummett in Beecroft, NSW

In calling for the troops to be brought home by Xmas, Latham is heading for the finish line – election victory – instead of worrying what Howard, behind in the race, will do next. It is the first sign of independence that Labor has shown in a long time and consistent with Labor party policy. Until now, Labor just didn’t have the courage to state it so unequivocally.

A couple of metaphors – one military, one sporting – suggest themselves.

First, the battle of Gettysburg. That too was a decision to join battle made on the fly. Both sides were looking for a fight and, as forces almost accidentally marshalled around the village of Gettysburg, they realised that it was as good a place as any to see who could win.

Second, the 7th America’s Cup race in 1983. Even though Australia II was in the lead after the last buoy, the skipper, John Bertrand, at first let Dennis Connor decide when and where tacking was to take place, almost to the point of becoming fouled-up in the spectator fleet. Connor was leading from behind, dictating the race from a position of weakness, as Howard has been doing for too long, freaking-out Labor with empty threats and a reputation for being “strong on security”. Yet everyone was wondering what the “wily old fox”, Connor, would come up with next. Eventually, Australia II simply refused Connor’s last tacking invitation and headed for the finish line. It was only then that the world saw how much in front our Australia II was.

Like Australia II’s John Bertrand did then, Latham is calling his opponent’s bluff. Like Union cavalry general Buford did at Gettysburg, he has decided it’s time to stand up to his tormentor. Latham is showing us all that the next election will be a genuine race, a real battle. He has kept his nerve and picked a difficult policy area – you could say the most difficult for a modern Labor leader – in which to take on the government. If he can win on this one, Labor could romp in.

On the international law question, it may well be that Australia has a duty to clean up after the mess it made in Iraq. But try telling that to the majority of Iraqis who want foreign troops out of their country and who are killing them daily to emphasise that point.

Iraq is a quagmire where we are not welcome, and any policy that purports to put a time line on withdrawal is better than one that, like Howard’s, has developed into commitment without end. Anyway, what’s to say we can’t discharge any residual duties we may still have in other ways than sending man and women in uniform to be targets of Iraqi insurgents? Do our service people have to be mutilated and hung from bridges to satisfy our consciences?

This area – national security – might not have been the best place for joining battle last week, but battle is joined. It has developed into a handsome chance for Labor to restore its credibility in an area commonly held to be the sole personal province of Howard and his gang. Latham has committed himself well so far and may even be winning. He is chipping away at the edifice of invincibility that Howard’s spin merchants have built up around their master.

Latham is setting the agenda, not letting Howard continually spook him from behind in the race. Most importantly, Latham is refusing to blink. Few on either side of politics have stared back at Howard lately, and it’s about time somebody did.

***

Phil Hewett

The government wallows in hypocrisy and the media just doesn’t get it, as ever colluding with Howard to smear another opposition leader instead of debating the injustice and criminality of Howard’s invasion of Iraq and his contemptuous treatment of the UN.

Margo, why ask the question “Can we trust Latham?” in Latham’s troops recall: your say Who trusts Howard? He’s in power and the mob accept him, so what’s the big point in asking for trust in the Opposition leader all of a sudden? Sounds like another Howard wedge to me. (MARGO: This is my point � why did Latham, soaring on the trust scale with his �new politics� of honesty and openness � allow himself to be trapped by Howard into looking like just another politician?)

It�s clear that since September 11, the US is blind to world opinion and most Australians will not tolerate dissent or difference, instead craving conformism and paternal leadership. When issues get too complex they retreat to prejudice and turn away in contempt.

I�m beginning to think middle Australia bloody well deserves John Howard. They�re captive to his security blanket of middle class conformity saturated in prejudice, fear and self-interest.

For Pete’s sake Margo the question you asked is not relevant. Howard should be howled down and frog marched out of Parliament each and every time he mentions honesty, trust, and integrity. He�s made an art form of deceit, lying and obfuscation and propaganda – why should we wallow in it with him?

***

Ian Patterson in Queanbeyan, NSW

No matter how you look at it, we are in Iraq as an army of occupation following an illegal invasion. Our troops should not have been there in the first place; they should not remain there now. Latham’s policy is correct. Get our troops out.

The UN should be providing assistance to Iraq to redevelop, including peacekeeping forces of which we could be a part. But not as an occupying army. Never again!

***

Michael Ilkehan

Margo, I think you are overestimating PM. I am sure Latham is on strong grounds in his arguments and will emerge the winner on this debate. Facts are on his side. He can’t lose.

Our contribution is only symbolic and won’t make much difference on the ground, except for its political impact on George Bush. The argument that we should finish the job sounds hollow.

***

Ben McDuff, on debut

Latham has wedged Howard – delicious, Labor wedging JWH on a *security issue* – and ensured Howard can’t pull a swifty just before the election and welcome home our troops on the docks.

Further, heaven forbid, the odds must be relatively high that this year there’ll be either deaths to Australian troops in Iraq or some kind of terrorist strike here in Australia.

If the former occurs where does that leave Howard? He can’t bring them home because that would show we’ve been ‘cowed by terrorists’? Latham can bring them home because he’s announced he�ll do just that. Plus, Labor didn’t want to send troops in the first place. If the latter occurs, it proves Latham’s claim that we need our troops here protecting our borders.

A question for you. Is Latham the new Keating or the new Hewson? (Margo: Keating without the pretensions.)

***

James Quest

I love Webdiary but you annoy me sometimes. I find your positions on Latham’s policy to pull out the troops infuriating! The point must be made: the ‘help’ in nation building that the Coalition of the Willing is giving the unfortunate people include:

 killing Iraqi civilians every day and being killed in return every day. The violence is getting worse and the Iraqi people are becoming more and more hostile to their occupiers.

 giving military support to the American led privatisation of Iraq’s economy.

 not providing the basic essential services, fuelling popular support for the resistance forces.

With ‘help’ like this any policy to withdraw the occupation forces is welcome.

***

Tony Kevin

This William Maley essay is the best thing I’ve read on bringing home the troops. It touches all the bases of argument, and neatly answers Ramesh Thakur’s point on international law.

The other point I would make – I’m 61 with a long memory back to Vietnam – is the way Howard exploits all that emotive rhetoric “Australians don’t cut and run”, we “stay the course”, we “stand firm”, we “hang in there”, we “stay till the job is done” because he knows all this stuff plays to such a deeply ingrained almost instinctive Australian value. We learned that stuff from our pioneer days, our survival often depended on fortitude.

Politicians only have to start using that rhetoric and the substance of the argument goes out the window as we all start salivating emotionally. Holt, McMahon, Gorton, etc all used that trick in Vietnam years.

It took Whitlam to have the courage to say – “comrades, this is all bullshit – persistence in folly is no virtue!” That is what Latham is trying to do now.

Here we are a generation later, going around the same mulberry bush again. Iraqis don’t want our armed soldiers there any more than Vietnamese did in the 1960s. Sending civilian aid teams after the politics of Iraq is legitimised by withdrawal of US occupation and a real act of self-determination is another issue altogether, but conflation of the two issues leads to foolish policies.

***

James Woodcock, ALP member

I am with Mark on this one. Bring the troops home. We should have never been there in the first place. Once again, the fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have nothing to do with fighting terrorism seems to have been lost.

Sure 65% of the population think they should stay there. This support would quickly change if civil war erupts or a truck load of our men and women get blown up.

Mark’s pronouncement that he wants to mirror Government policy and abolish ATSIC is much more disturbing than his stance on Iraq. Aboriginal affairs needs a radical rethink, but from the scant detail he seems to want to take us back to the pre 1967 position where Aboriginal Welfare was the function of state governments.

Colonial and state governments bear a lot of the responsibility for the mess we are in today. They either practiced extreme neglect -as spending money on Aboriginal services is not a vote winner or they brought us the social engineering disasters like taking children away from their mothers and communities in the hope of literally breeding out the Aboriginal genes.

The improvement of health education and housing for Aborignals should be a national endeavour, provided directly by the federal government. That is the only way you can override parochial prejudice and self interest.

I think we all need to be on our guard. After eight years of Howard the last thing we need is another politician who is willing to play populist politics with marginalised groups.

***

NOPE, LATHAM�S THE LOSER

Wesley Folitarik

I have read many articles suggesting that Mark Latham’s honeymoon period is over thanks to his poor performance on the ‘”troops out of Iraq” pledge.

Some claim the “honeymoon” period is typical for new fresh faces entering the political arena. I add that Mark Latham is also in the extremely fortunate position of being a “wartime opposition leader”. This should be ensuring him an long and extended honeymoon period. Traditionally governments don’t last these wartime elections. Latham’s failure to convincingly dominate a besieged wartime leadership (Howard’s Liberals) has highlighted the Labor Party’s and Latham’s shortcomings as a serious political threat to the Liberal Government.

It�s the same old problem – the Labor Party lacks real policies, basing their claim to government on opposing Liberal policy. Australians see this.

Labor long beat the drum that security was not an election issue, and tried to put domestic issues back on the agenda. This may have been the best course to run against a besieged wartime government where you have a historical advantage. Now a drastic about face sees Latham talk of “homeland security”. The public is sceptical.

Now Latham is on the offensive vowing to bring our troops home from Iraq to protect Australians. Big mistake. Even right wing Australians now realise (although few will admit it) that we were duped into Iraq by the US on WMD. But Australians collectively have a strong sense of taking responsibility for their actions; hence most Australians support the Liberals in staying put and helping clean up the mess.

So Latham puts security and terrorism back on the agenda then hands the microphone to Howard! Political suicide.

A reeling Latham then launches a pre-emptive strike of his own on ATSIC – back on the domestic front after suffering heavy casualties on Iraq and security. This manoeuvre is backed up by another pledge on cash for kids. Reinforcing the home front.

After a brief foray into international issues, Latham has proven he is not capable of leading the country responsibly on Iraq and security.

It seems Latham and Labor are failing to dominate a besieged wartime government. If Labor can’t achieve that, they won’t fair very well at the polls either when economic policy brings many swingers back the right.

***

Shaun O’Brien

Margo, it’s funny seeing the transformation of Latham “the hero” to Latham “the typical pollie” within a week with you. Is the strong vitrol because you see that Howard may remain in office or that Latham is no better (or perhaps worse than Howard) at the end of the day? My money is on the latter.

Latham has taken a stance on the troops, and giving excuses such as the defence of Australia, in my eyes not much different to the Coalition saying “We are going to invade Iraq because of WMD”. Both were lies covering the real reason for their actions. Howard lied to keep the US on side and the alliance intact. Latham is doing it to keep the polls in his favour and get the ALP into government.

So who do we choose between? Howard lied to keep Australia’s long term future safe by keeping the US on side. What benefit do Latham’s lies achieve?

In the short term it does nothing for Australia’s defence, as you rightly pointed out. In the long term it puts the US offside and encourages the terrorists.

If you are a long time suffering ALP supporter, would you be happy to support a side that lies to get ahead even after serving up to the Coalition for their indefensible lies? Willing to do anything for victory perhaps?

I wonder if Kevin Rudd still thinks he is bound by Lathams call to be “honest” in politics. His leader was quick to get rid of that label when the chips were down, but he forgot to tell his troops.

Is it a coincidence that Latham’s abysmal national security gaff occurred when the only ALP member worthy of advancing informed security matters is in Western Australia recovering from a medical problem? The ALP is sorely missing big Kim’s input. Rudd is probably on his knees praying for a quick recovery.

***

Andrew Prentice

I’m nonplussed. Most of the rhetoric around Mark Latham’s announcement that he intends to recall Australian troops in Iraq was whether this was a politically expedient move in terms of his election chances. And 65% of Australians disagree with him, saying the troops should stay till the job’s done.

What exactly is “the job”? Capturing Saddam? We got him. Finding WMD? You can’t find what was never there, a fact most from George W. to John W. are reluctantly realising. Preventing terrorism? Exactly how will occupying Iraq do that?

I wonder how many of the 65% might change their minds when/if an Australian service man or woman is killed in Iraq. When did this country become so screwed up that a majority of people would disagree with a proposal that might save lives and distance this country a little from a “superpower” determined to prove that phrase in a military sense, no matter how many enemies they make?

I’m going travelling later in the year, and I’ll be introducing myself as a New Zealander.