Hi. At 1 pm tomorrow George Bush will tell Australians what he, and therefore we, might do next. In the meantime, I’ve published a sample of the stacks of emails on yesterday’s question: Why does America want war?
In response to John Howard’s post Blix report press conference this afternoon, our war commentator Scott Burchill writes:
“The PM said he thought it was significant that Blix didn’t ask for more time to complete his work. Could someone explain to Mr Howard that Dr Blix didn’t need to? Today wasn’t a deadline for UNMOVIC. It was an interim report on progress, to be followed by subsequent reports. No-one in UNMOVIC regards today as a deadline for their work. They have another 350 sites to inspect. Assuming they had more time, why would they ask for more? Such is the poverty of ill-informed soundbites.”
Scott’s also intrigued by Colin Powell’s statement at Davos on Australia Day that “We continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action on Iraq alone or in a coalition of the willing.” “Really? What sovereign right would that be? Under the UN Charter, no member-state can take military action against another without explicit UN Security Council authorisation, or in self-defence. Neither conditions exist. In fact even UNSC 1441 only talks about a Security Council meeting following UNMOVIC reports. There is no authority for individual members to take unilateral action.”
“You can see where Powell, Downer and co are heading. Because UMNOVIC has failed to uncover any WMD, the Iraq issue has now become a question of “co-operation” rather than “disarmament”. They are going to have to argue the case for war on the basis of Iraq’s lack of enthusiasm for, and pro-active co-operation with, weapons inspectors. Good luck – they will need it.”
Scott has updated his January 14 essay, ‘Counterspin: Pro-war mythology’, at smh. His original essay is in New year resolutions.
***
Activism
Yvonne Francis, a member of the Nuclear Disarmament Party in Queanbeyan, NSW: “On Sunday at the Governor-General’s Australia Day flag raising ceremony by Lake Burley Griffin, surrounded by police and the armed forces, Ben Smith and I waved placards saying NO WAR and NO BLOOD FOR OIL. We were not arrested. When an F18 screamed over a few feet above our heads children cried out and sobbed. TV cameras avoided us but the Anglican Bishop of Canberra George Browning walked over to shake hands and thank us.”
***
Recommendations
Jozef Imrich recommends “The State Of The Union Address I’d Like To Hear”, by Arianna Huffington, at workingforchange and ‘Why the Rush to War?’, by Robert Higgs, in independent.
Greenpeace have a set up for letters to go to the Security Council at greenpeace
Peter Kelly recommends “Why I will not rally around the president”, by Robert Jensen, at zmag or counterpunch.
A reader recommends American anti-war site unitedforpeace
Melody recommends ‘The U.S. Is Looking for an Excuse To Fight’, by Adam Hochschild, at alternet
***
Please, the American people are doing good
Alex Pollard
Criticisms of Americans often unconsciously confuse the USA (the nation) with Americans (who I shall call ‘United Staticians’).
While ordinary United Staticians are a bit too self-engrossed for their own good, the problem with the USA is its elite. The US elite is what crushes unions, directs covert ops and invents mind-boggling rationales for mass murder. The US elite claims the USA is a democracy, but since before World War Two it has been morphing from a Republic in to an Empire, and as the Romans found out, the two are incompatible.
The tradition of US isolationism comes straight from the Founding Fathers. The US media has forgotten all about that wisdom. It’s a credit to United Staticians that they are discerning the facts about Iraq in spite of their elites’ spin media, and are developing their own hypotheses.
***
Critics
Daniel Maurice in Sydney
Webdiary yesterday (Oh Superman) began: “John Howard’s decision to incorporate our troops into the United States invasion force means Australia has consented to its invasion plan. If yesterday’s reports about those plans are true, he has agreed to a scorched earth invasion which would indiscriminately kill a huge number of civilians. If the Yanks go to war without UN authorisation, just about every country in the region, Muslim nations around the world and many Australians would see this as mass murder. What are we doing? Why?”
Do you actually BELIEVE what you write? Do you honestly, in your heart, think that Bush or Howard or whoever in the US/Australian governments “has agreed to a scorched earth invasion which would indiscriminately kill a huge number of civilians”? Think of the power of those words. They mean that Bush or Howard rank in the Hitler, Pol Pot etc class of true genocidal maniacs. You REALLY believe this?
I despair. My last vestiges of respect for you as journalist, indeed a human being, have disappeared. All what I see now is a hate-filled ideologue, not interested in objective analysis or reporting, so determined are you to peddle a self-serving distortions of facts and motives to feed your own peculiar prejudices. Forget about Bush and Howard, it’s people like you I really fear!
What you are doing is not ethical journalism.
Margo: Sorry, but I don’t get your point here. I was careful to preface my comment by saying they were premised on the assumption that the reports were true. I don’t believe or disbelieve them. Time will tell. I hope they’re not, for the reasons you give. “It is based on a strategy known as “Shock and Awe”, conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 Gulf War. ‘There will not be a safe place in Baghdad,’ a Pentagon official told America’s CBS News after a briefing on the plan. ‘The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before.'”(smh).
***
Interplay
Mike Lyvers
Karen Jackson wrote in Oh Superman: “What’s more, the propaganda that says the terrorists hate our freedom is just so much bullshit. Its not freedom that these people hate; it’s America’s hypocrisy.” Karen chokes on her own bullshit here. Clearly from the terrorists’ frequent proclamations, hypocrisy is never once mentioned as a reason they hate us. Our lack of fundamentalist Islamic belief and behaviour is.
***
Priorities
Chris Murphy
You may have to read these at least twice. From the Washington Post, 27 January 2003: “In this era of globalization, it isn’t just the State Department that thinks beyond U.S. borders. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson says he has secured $5 million in the upcoming federal budget for health care in Afghanistan. The money, if approved by Congress, would rebuild a large women’s hospital in Kabul and four satellite clinics across the war-torn country, according to information released by Thompson’s office yesterday.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46889-2003Jan26.html)
From The Dawn (Pakistan), 3 December 2001: “The cost of the US campaign in Afghanistan will be relatively modest compared to recent military engagements such as the Gulf War of 1991 and the 1999 Kosovo campaign, experts and Pentagon figures suggest. The Defense Department calculated at 1.481 billion dollars the supplementary, or incremental, cost of operation ‘Enduring Freedom’ between the day of the terrorist onslaught September 11 and November 8, one month into the US bombing campaign that began October 7.”(dawn)
***
Apology
On rereading In Australia’s best interests, I reckon I was too rough on Steve Liebmann. My argument was that John Howard should not have fronted his terrorism ads with a media person not involved in the issue, but with someone who was, and thus accountable to the people, and able to answer their questions. I wasn’t meaning to disparage Steve’s professionalism, which is acute ( I worked briefly with Steve when I was at A Current Affair, so have some personal knowledge of this). Sorry, Steve.
***
WHY????
Yesterday in Oh Superman, I asked what you most feared for Australia if we joined a unilateral US attack. Harry Heidelberg asked: “What is the main reason for invading Iraq?
1. Weapons of mass destruction (apparently not – Scott Burchill and Jack Robertson have deconstructed this one out of the debate)
2. Oil (Europeans most strongly believe this one)
3. George Bush Jnr completing dad’s unfinished business
4. The start of a new order in the Middle East
5. A human rights improvement project
6. The US showing that it will implement a new security policy for global dictatorship
Andrew Asquith, in an isolated oil town in China
I was truly saddened tom read of the reported US strategy of using 800+ mega-bombs in 2 days. September 11 was so ghastly, it’s heart breaking to see it repeated. No matter what the leaders say it’s, still murder. My guess as to the reason? 1) Oil, 2) Doing it for Daddy.
***
Jackson Manning (nom de plume)
The world doesn’t trust George Bush and his regime because:
* It fears Bush’s administration of Hawks is fuelled by post-Cold War hubris and dreams of a (ruthless) hyper-power hegemony. Some of these Hawks are so cuckoo they reckon it’d be a good idea to attack China.
* It fears the Bush administration’s brief is to re-make the world for the benefit of its own benefactors – US corporations, many of them already shown to be mean and inhumane. Though most don’t protest in the streets, many share the suspicions and sentiments of anti-corporate protesters.
* The the administration has already thumbed its nose at the rest of the world through Kyoto and the International Criminal Court.
* Recent Republican administrations (in particular) have an ugly history of corrupt and arguably evil dealings (the bombing of Cambodia, Watergate, the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra etc etc).
* Although we may like their brainless sitcoms and nutritionless burgers, we still like to think we’re wary of swallowing any ol’ crud served up to us. Soylent Green anyone?
* Bush’s rhetoric is all cowboy, with little evidence there’s any cattle in his top paddock. This is real life, George, not a John Wayne movie!
*And ultimately, because no evidence has been given. It’s one thing for Bush, Blair and Howard to say they have no doubts Saddam has WMD, but we require incontrovertible proof before launching a war that will kill tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people. If the case for war is so strong, they must prove it.
What are my main fears about the possible consequences for Australia of joining a US invasion?
* that many Australian service personnel will be killed and maimed.
* that the Middle East will go ‘feral’ and we’ll quickly become a top line and relatively easy terrorist target. And for what? A Free Trade agreement that will likely kill off Medicare, subsidised medicine and force us to adopt a US-style health care system.
* that the UN will collapse, and with it a multilateral security system and 50 years of gains in human rights infrastructure.
***
Damien Jandes
1) Oil
2) NASDAQ a mess
3) Military like to use their toys from time to time.
4) Unfinished Family Business
5) Only real president’s can start a war.
6)Andersen, Enron, World Com too hard!
7) Easier than finding Osama.
8) Can find Iraq on map, also know who leader is.
9) Some sort of treaty thingy????
10) Human rights have been abused (ha ha joke)
***
Trevor Kerr
Do you reckon the US is aiming to plant itself as semi-permanent nuclear power in the Middle East, and that was the aim all along, not just the oil? The editorial in The Oz today talks up the Indyk proposal for Israel (Martin Indyk of Brookings/Saban): “So too is a proposal for Israel to hand the West Bank and Gaza to a temporary international protectorate with security maintained by a multinational force. This “trusteeship” would make way for Palestinian rule after a period of nation building.”
Indyk is trotting around a plan for US & UK & Oz to be trustees. I couldn’t see it before, because the US would not be allowed in. It makes more sense if the US is a major overseer of region, based in Iraq. Indyk has commentary in the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/27/opinion/27INDY.html.
I really liked John Howard’s prompt reply to Kerry O’Brien last week that he wouldn’t countenance Ozzies going to a nuclear battleground. That sounded like he had special knowledge that Bush has sworn off nukes (for the sake of Israel). And now they are busy clarifying (what they have been quietly saying all along) that all bets will be off, and, anyway, since they have reclassified some nukes as ordinary weapons, who should care?
Now I can understand why the US wants the inspectors out as soon as possible.
And I guess it makes sense, that if you say you will use nukes if provoked, you had better be prepared to set them up in Iraq as part of the long-term occupancy. Having got to that point, it then becomes the dominant strategic focus. How will JH get himself out of this one? Maybe he has his sick certificate already filled out, bar the date.
***
Mark Sergeant
Why doesn’t the world trust George Bush and his regime?
First: Anyone, anywhere, with a bit of education is at least vaguely aware of Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua. They know the list is a lot longer, but it gets hard to remember the details. And this is not just history today there is Israel/Palestine, Venezuela and, of course, Iraq. A large part of the world has pretty direct experience of US intervention, and the rest knows about it.
Second: See In Europe, don’t mention the Yanks. A lot of this applies to the rest of the world as well.
Third: “Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?” 83% in a Time poll say the US.
Check out the National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Manifesto for world dictatorship). Keep in mind the first and second points above, and you may find yourself agreeing with the third.
***
W Jansson
The only reason I can come up with that makes any sense (if war ever can) is to ensure a nice smooth supply of oil in case the US goes after the Saudis. Most of the Sept. 11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and the US is well aware of anti-American sentiment in that country.
The US administration have been deadly silent on this fact, but for the US to do anything about that they would need a different supply of oil so as not to heavily cut into their strategic reserves. My guess is that it is about maintaining supply rather than total control in the event of a conflict with the Saudis (although total control is the likely outcome).
Iraq would also make a good staging point for any conflict with the Saudis. Nothing else makes sense to me, except that Bush is just plain crazy. It’s obvious no link can be drawn between Iraq and Al Qaeda, otherwise that would have been done by now.
***
Peter Kelly
My opinion is No. 2 – oil followed by 6 – muscle flexing and 4 – remaking the Middle East. But oil is primarily what the war is about.
The world discovery curve has declined since 1962 and 80 % of today’s oil comes from fields discovered prior to 1973. Newer discoveries are both fewer and smaller. The world today discovers about 6 billion barrels of oil a year but the world uses four times this amount. The larger pre-1973 fields will need to be replaced by today’s smaller discoveries and for this reason oil production will decline from 2010, give or take a few years, causing permanent recession world wide.
The US will control Iraq’s oil to allow it to continue to grow its consumption. Allies who kow tow to the US will also benefit. This is probably the angle the US is using to strong arm Russia, Germany and France. Russia and France will lose their contracts if the US war is successful but will lose even more if they do not agree to US action. From Iraq the US may be able to control all the Middle East and its oil. Pretexts for intervention to achieve this can be manufactured. But for the US and allies to continue to insulate themselves, others will lose out.
These will be nations opposing the US and the third world, particularly China. China now has to import oil and its ascendancy in economic power is dependent on oil. The US wants to contain China. Part of the “big game” in central Asia is to keep pipe lines away from the Caspian Sea – China route and instead position them through to Turkey or to Pakistan and India via Afghanistan.
It is very ugly policy and in George Bush the US has the very worse president and an oil mafia in the White House. Should the war succeed the Bush administration will have learnt how to do it again for Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait. It is extremely dangerous. The world by 2010 will be infinitely more unstable than it is today.
I wonder who the “Germany” is when protagonists compare Iraq to 1930s Germany? The hegemonic militarist state looks like the USA.
***
Jack Robertson in Sydney
I’m not sure whether or not Harry was being slightly tongue-in-cheek, but just to re-iterate – Scott Burchill and I have not tried to ‘deconstruct the WMD out of debate’ at all. What we have argued is more complicated and now far more urgent, as Hans Blix says he is worried about approximately 8,500 litres of anthrax and 6500 chemical warheads that is still ‘missing’. The crucial question regarding WMD remains – is a balls-and-all invasion and occupation the best way to safely disarm it if we haven’t got a clue where it is? If Hans can’t find this stuff in the pre-invasion calm, why will the 101st Airborne Division have any more luck during battle, and post the massive bombardment?
The next crucial question is: Does the US in fact know something about WMD locations that they aren’t telling UN inspectors? It’s surely dangerous to go chasing rattlesnakes with a sledge-hammer and both eyes closed, yet they’re readying themselves for the biggest conventional invasion/occupation since WW2. So will these large missing stockpiles suddenly’ turn up a few days after D-Day? Forgive me for sounding cynical, but an important safety tip with stuff like VX and anthrax is presumably to ensure that your own bombardments don’t blow stockpiles of it skyhigh, right?
So has the American High Command been told even vaguely where this stuff is? If not, how can they plan the biggest two-day Tomahawk barrage ever seen with confidence that they won’t inadvertently create a localised WMD disaster? And if so, they should tell the inspectors now. Either way, the US should stop just saying they have ‘secret evidence’ they’ll reveal ‘later’. We’re all on the same side here. Unless, that is, your side plans to invade Iraq no matter what the inspectors achieve. Or don’t. Or aren’t allowed to, now.
***
G. Norton in France
As a European who lived in Australia for about 15 years, I would like to try and answer the question, as to why Australia, like Britain, is following the US into war. To me, who was not born in an English-speaking country, the answer is very straight-forward and simple – because John Howard and obviously a lot of his conservative party colleagues are still, deep in their hearts, bemoaning the loss of the Empire and the power and influence it brought.
They, like the British upper class in the case of Britain (the constant insistence on wielding a disproportionate influence on European politics and the continuing efforts to drive wedges between members of the EU in order to halt consensus are ample evidence of this), cannot come to terms with the fact that Australia is only one of many, that it is only a small country which therefore cannot expect to have much to say on a world scale.
But since they still dream of grandeur and more power than they deserve in a world that craves for democracy, they attach themselves to the US.
For any continental European, the banding together of the English-speaking world in the looming war speaks volumes! Evidence for the likely correctness of my analysis in the case of Howard is also his staunch support for the role of the queen as head of Australia. I do not think, that his support is only based on some attachment to the current queen, but rather to the institution it used to represent, The British Empire. Clinging to the US and acting as one with them is the next-best thing to bringing it back.