Related:  Chris Duvall’s cartoon

I’m still stunned. I knew Howard would do it – go to war without the UN – but I still can’t quite believe he’s done it, without a qualm, it seems.

With one decision, we have lost our friends in our region and the goodwill and protection of the United Nations, the body we helped found and, until Howard’s government, championed as a friend of middle-ranking powers like us.

Remember East Timor? Howard asked the US for troops – it replied that this was a regional matter, and we should handle it ourselves. The UN managed the crisis – through it we organised our own coalition of the willing, including several neighbours in the region. They could not help us after this – antagonistic public opinion in their countries would make that impossible.

And strangely, oh so strangely, the government doesn’t seem to understand what declaring war on another country means, and has failed to protect his own people from the possible consequences of declaring war on Iraq. According to Howard this morning, there was no greater risk of attack to Australia since he declared war on Iraq. Yesterday, Greenpeace showed that the Opera House is not secured (smh). Our airports are not secured (smh) Protesters chained themselves to the Lodge gates this morning – so even the Prime Minister’s residence is not secured (smh).

Last week on Lateline, two homeland security experts warned that terrorists did not need chemical weapons – they could ge the same effect from highjacking a chemical tanker on our roads. And yet we have done nothing to protect ourselves from this possibility, either.

John Howard says we are going to war to protect us from terrorism. Yet now, if we are hit, it will not be a terrorist attack, but an act of war in a war we began. We have made allies of our enemies, and enemies of our friends.

Yesterday’s decision was the culmination of policy Howard has steadily and deliberately pursued since his election in 1996. First, disengage from Asia. Second, walk away from what Keating calls the international architecture. We are alone, save for the United States, if helping us suits their interests and they’re not otherwise engaged. I believe John Howard’s decision has imperilled Australia’s national security. I still can’t believe he’s done it.

At the end of this entry, I’ve published some articles written in the lead up to the UN coalition going into East Timor after the massacres, lest we forget the terrible cost to Australia of John Howard’s declaration of war on Iraq. When you read them, imagine a scenario where Indonesia decided to invade East Timor or to fund militia to take it over, and remember that if it said it thought its security could be threatened by East Timor sometime in the future it could go right in under the US precedent of premptive strike about to be estbalished in Iraq. Who would we turn to? And who would say yes?

Tonight, your feelings on the eve of war.

Chris Duvall

I’m so pissed off at being railroaded into John Howard’s bloody war I could only express myself in cartoon form. Words are wasted.

***

John Augustus

SNAP!

The big eagle caught in the trap,

Feathers of failed diplomacy drifting.

Bin Laden smiling, the hapless waiting,

A swift brutal war, a fractured globe.

The terrorist wins after all.

***

Marcus Bussey in Maleny, Queensland

Thanks for waving the flag and sticking to your guns. I was thinking this the other night.

***

On the Eve of War, Again

by Marcus Bussey

Were damned if we do,

Damned if we don’t,

So let’s believe the silvern lies

Of our leaders

And strike down the demon,

Exchanging poison for poison,

The lie for the dagger.

*

Strike the fear from my eyes,

Cries the child,

Strike the fear from my heart,

Cries the mother.

Yet

The only freedom I’ll find

Is in the cave of my being

Were lighted candles flicker

And my shadow dances on the

Walls of my heart.

*

No sin is clean,

The clear water of our souls

Filters through the grit of our lives,

The lurid aquifer of our days,

Scraping terror from the Moon’s face

Hiding lies in burning bushes

While the would be great

Strut about bleating.

*

These little men who will not

Do the bleeding on the plain

Utter prayers to hollow gods

Mutter moral sanctions at the stars

Threaten, coerce, cajole till boredom

Breaks a hole in the wall of cant

And purifies the arena with the blood

Of innocents sacrificed for the lie

That evil can sweep away evil

And raise the banner of freedom

When hearts are ignorant

And heads lost in the miasma

Of a tortured soul searching.

*

The brave are those who believe

The damned are stuck in between

Thus we find ourselves on the eve of war,

Again.

***

Denise Parkinson

A friend just sent this to me and I just cried. What are we going to do?

The Fiddle and The Drum

by Joni Mitchell

And so once again

My dear Johnny my dear friend

And so once again you are fightin’ us all

And when I ask you why

You raise your sticks and cry, and I fall

Oh, my friend

How did you come

To trade the fiddle for the drum

*

You say I have turned

Like the enemies you’ve earned

But I can remember

All the good things you are

And so I ask you please

Can I help you find the peace and the star

Oh, my friend

What time is this

To trade the handshake for the fist

*

And so once again

Oh, America my friend

And so once again

You are fighting us all

And when we ask you why

You raise your sticks and cry and we fall

Oh, my friend

How did you come

To trade the fiddle for the drum

*

You say we have turned

Like the enemies you’ve earned

But we can remember

All the good things you are

And so we ask you please

Can we help you find the peace and the star

Oh my friend

We have all come

To fear the beating of your drum

(From the album ‘Clouds’ 1969)

***

Alex Sosnov

I cried yesterday hearing John ‘Coward’ speak. I can’t believe the hypocrisy of all this talk about democracy… and he completely ignores the people who he works for – the Australian public. The US and it’s neo-conservative Government is reminding me of what I’ve read about the Roman Empire – just before it began to fall. There is just something not right about this – it’s weird.

***

John T. Alfonse in Everett Mass. U.S.A.

I would like to say a couple of things to the Australian people.

First thank you for your continued friendship and support over a long, long period of time, including being able to forgive some things of which the U.S. government should rightly be ashamed of doing to a friend. My country is far from perfect.

Regarding the Iraq situation, to quote R.A. Heinlein; a brute kills for pleasure and a fool kills for hate. I truly believe my government is neither. We are taking this course of action because the consequences of not doing it will, in the long run, cost more lives in Iraq and the rest of the world than doing nothing.

There are no sure things in the world. History will judge whether this was a correct course of action or not. I am just a blue collar working stiff with a brother in the national guard, but I wanted to make my feelings known to a nation that I admire, and respect.

***

Eric Wurtzebach in San Diego, CA

As a resident of the US, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all Australians for your support in our cause in Iraq. Whether you agree with our mission or not, we truly appreciate your support and sacrifices. In the coming days I will be praying for the lives of our soldiers. Support out troops!!

***

Andrew Robinson

I’ve never written to your column before. With you and most of your readers and contributors I really don’t know whether to feel disgusted or despairing or angry or resigned, or all of the above. I don’t have a great deal to add to the debate but merely refer you to a beautiful article in the English edition of Le Monde Diplomatique: United States: inventing demons

***

David Eastwood in Sydney

John Howard has taken us to war, and the big guns are out. Not only does the UN think it’s illegal, it’s been described in the media today as “un-Australian”. The stakes don’t get bigger…

Howard is the most pragmatic politician I’ve ever seen. He could even be French. Poll-driven, not strong ideologically, not strong on foreign policy, not much of a vision of Australia in the world, not strong on ego. So, why has he taken such a controversial, even radical decision that the vast majority of the population disagrees with that could turn out to be another Vietnam?

Why hasn’t the cabinet leaked or dissented? I’m used to seeing TV vision of Saddam Hussein’s cabinet meetings – two dozen men in identikit army uniforms and moustaches, ever noticed that? No dissent there. I wonder if our cabinet donned fake eye-brows to rubber stamp our decision to go to war?

I walked passed Howard in the street in Sydney on Monday as he strode purposefully between engagements – missed him by centimetres. He saw me, lifted the brows, and gave me that same moon-faced idiot grin he gives the media on his morning power walks in foreign towns. He looked cock-a-hoop, despite the gravity of the situation. What’s going on?

What’s driving this insanity, John boy? Is it free trade? Has George threatened punitive sanctions or no progress at all on trade if we don’t play (base)ball?

Not free trade? OK, what is it? Has he threatened to head-hunt Steve Waugh to the national league? I just don’t get it. Why are we doing this? What do you know that we don’t know?

***

Andrew O’Connell in Edinburgh

It looks like the spiders nest is about to be destroyed and the angry swarm released. The war is going to happen. Innocent people are going to die. An angry, suppressed multitude are about to have a real target for their hatred and there will be further death and destruction. Cheney, Rumsfield, Perle and the good ol boys will have got their way – the new American Century will have begun and they and a lot of their friends are going to get a lot richer.

What happens next? Is Pax Americana now inevitable?

Perhaps, instead, now is the volcanic opportunity that has been needed since the end of the cold war to overcome the apathy that has precluded any real hope of overcoming the latest ism to blight the world. People power has changed lives for the better before and the Brainwashington resistance shows that for the first time any such defiance can be international. It MUST be international and include like minded people from all over the world. We all need reminding that an Iraqi is no more like Saddam than an Australian is a John Howard clone. Palestinians need to see and hear from the Americans who are prepared to represent them.

The millions of people who have been protesting against globalisation are now joined by many millions more. These people who found globalisation too ambiguous a concept to oppose find that they have no such problem resisting those who preach war. Who do we have in Australia to galvanise this community of the disenfranchised? Rick Farley? ob Brown? John Wojdylo? It’s time for someone to stand up. Together we have a chance to forge a new path. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

***

Lloyd Mcdonald

Hi Margo. I think The Guardian’s Dilemmas of war speaks for most of us. An extract:

These will be dark days for everyone. Darkest for those caught up in combat – whether they are the civilians whose homes and families are about to be bombarded in an unprecedented display of “shock and awe”, or the uniformed men and women dropping the bombs. They are both about to enter the dizzying, topsy-turvy world of war, where death could come at any moment.

But there is darkness closer to home, too. In these days of anxiety and fear, where should those who have opposed this war put themselves? How should they cope with the coming days of shock and awe?

For some, the start of war will mean an end to the anti-war campaign. For them, to do anything less would be to undermine our armed forces just as they place themselves in harm’s way.

But this is one of those cliches of political protocol that makes little logical sense. As Robin Cook put it in his spellbinding resignation speech to the Commons: “It is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.” Indeed, opponents of war can say it is precisely because they value the lives of our service personnel that they wish they were not risking their lives in a questionable cause.

…should those who have argued against this war want it to go well or badly? Only the pettiest and most small-minded peacenik would want American or British troops to die just to bring the satisfaction of saying “I told you so”. Those who wish this war had never happened should now want it to end as swiftly and painlessly as possible – in a US-British victory. The ideal outcome would be an instant decapitation of Saddam and his vicious regime, leaving the body of Iraqi society intact. The longer the war drags on, the more pounding that is inflicted, the more Iraqi civilians will die.

Supporting the troops and hoping for victory: many in the anti-war camp will fear all this sounds too much like giving up. And the pressure to buckle will be immense: the drop in anti-war sentiment recorded in yesterday’s Guardian poll suggests it’s already working its magic. Blair’s “heroic” efforts to get a second UN resolution, anti-French prejudice, the patriotic surge as “our boys” set off for battle – each has played its part in boosting support for war.

All of this will be hard to resist. There will be a momentum, even excitement, to war once the bombs drop and the TV newsmen get deep into their sandpits. Nevertheless, critics of this war have to keep up their own fight. No task will be more crucial than the vigilant protection of the truth as it suffers its very own aerial bombardment.

…Above all, war sceptics need to be braced for the victory that we hope will come soon. Chances are, Iraqis will greet their liberators with flowers and tears of delight. The “torture chambers and rape rooms” that George Bush spoke of on Monday night will be revealed. We will hear confirmed what we already know: that Saddam is one of the cruellest butchers to walk the face of the earth.

But we should be prepared now for what the pro-war camp will say as these pictures emerge. Gloatingly, they will tell us our “credibility is destroyed”, as Melanie Phillips wrote in the Daily Mail this week. “Saddam’s apparatus of terror” will shatter “the whole world view of the left”.

…We need to be ready for that. When the time comes, we will have to remind our accusers that we did not question this war because we believed Saddam was a cuddly grandpa: we knew the depths of his depravity. Our doubts resided elsewhere. For one thing, we never believed that Iraqi liberation was the real motive of this war. Witness Bush’s address, in which the humanitarian argument was jumbled up among the old, bogus ones: Baghdad’s links with al-Qaida and the direct threat posed by Iraq to America’s security. If the pro-war camp says such concerns are academic – who cares about motive, so long as the end result is the same? – we need to have an answer to that too. It is this: our fear is that the Bush administration, given its intentions, cannot be trusted to get Iraq’s future right. Intention has an effect on outcome, and if this war is being fought only peripherally for the benefit of the Iraqi people that fact will have an impact on the post-war settlement. Of course, almost any new arrangement will be an improvement on Saddam. But two arguments made repeatedly these last few months will still hold firm: the price in Iraqi deaths may well be too high and other, less lethal means were possible.

It will be hard to say all this once the killing begins in earnest: the drama of war will make opposition look pale and passe. But doubters should hold their nerve. Our reason for opposition was never that victory would not come easily: most predicted it would. We feared instead for what that victory would cost and what would happen afterwards – and those fears still stand.

***

EAST TIMOR – A REMINDER

The following list of members of the UN Coalition which helped us restore the peace in East Timor is at the United Nations’ UNAMET (United Nations Mission in East Timor) site, UN.

Civilian Police: current deployment = 271 (fully deployed)

Contributions from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Ghana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, USA, Zimbabwe

Military Liaison Officers: current deployment = 50 (fully deployed)

Contributions from Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Denmark, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Thailand, United Kingdom, USA, Uruguay.

***

Australia responsible for E Timor, says US

by Joanne Gray, Washington, September 4, 1999

The US expects Australia to lead any peace-keeping force in East Timor and to push for a United Nations resolution to authorise such a force.

The US State Department also believes that Australia should carry responsibility for seeing through the independence process. Australia should take the role, the department says, because it was Prime Minister Mr John Howard’s letter to Indonesia’s President, Dr B. J. Habibie, last December urging Jakarta to consider self-determination for East Timor that triggered the process.

The way the US State Department sees it, according to one source, “the Howard letter provoked the whole thing. Now Australia has the responsibility to follow through.”

The US is also trying to bolster the role of the UN and limit its own involvement in far-flung peace-keeping action after it had its fingers burned in the Congress and internationally over its near-unilateral actions in Kosovo, where air strikes were launched without UN Security Council approval.

Granted, America’s ability to deal with Indonesia would be much greater if the East Timor issue were resolved peacefully. But the Clinton Administration believes there would be little support in the Congress for the deployment of US peace keepers in Timor, a faraway island whose troubles have found little resonance in the American polity beyond parts of the Portuguese and Catholic communities. Moreover, the US has many other international commitments and its armed forces are already stretched across the globe.

In staying distanced from the East Timor issue, the US is protecting what it believes is a more crucial strategic interest in the stability of Indonesia as a whole. The Pentagon, especially, is worried about the impetus Timor’s likely secession could give to other break-away groups in Indonesia, and fears high-profile US involvement might add to this impetus.

It is not yet clear whether US public detachment from the process could also extend to top-level contacts. Dr Habibie has asked for a meeting at APEC with Mr Clinton, according to sources, but so far a bilateral meeting has not been granted.

UN officials late this week accepted that the rollout of a peace-keeping force could be days or weeks away, rather than months.

Discussions about the make-up of such a force and how quickly it could be deployed have already begun. “One of the big questions is, what is Australia willing to do in terms of peace keeping?” said Mr Doug Paal, director of the Asia-Pacific Policy Centre in Washington.

The US is willing to contribute technical and logistical assistance, but is reluctant to take a high-profile role in a UN deployment.

In some quarters, there is also an expectation that Portugal would contribute, at least financially.

Japan and the US would get involved, Mr Paal said, “as long as [involvement] did not sacrifice their interests in stability in Indonesia”.

Chinese involvement was not out of the question, he said, because China would be delighted if the peace-keeping intervention “went back to using the UN mandate” to sanction the operation, after the US ignored the UN with its aerial war in Kosovo and Yugoslavia.

***

Australia pushes US over Timor

by Geoffrey Barker, September 8, 1999, AFR

Australia yesterday called in the United States’ debts for support in past crises, urging a reluctant Washington to join an international peacekeeping force for East Timor.

Australia yesterday called in the United States’ debts for support in past crises, urging a reluctant Washington to join an international peacekeeping force for East Timor.

The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, telephoned President Bill Clinton to say that Australians would find it “very strange indeed” if the US refused assistance in what has become Canberra’s greatest foreign policy crisis since the Vietnam War.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, delivered a similarly blunt message to the US Secretary of State, Dr Madeleine Albright.

“We’ve given very strong support to the US over and over again in many different conflicts … Australians would have a sense of comfort if the US were to be involved,” Mr Downer said last night.

The Australian move came as the Indonesian President, Dr B.J. Habibie, declared martial law in East Timor and told Mr Howard that he “may be willing” to accept an international force if the reign of terror by pro-Indonesian militia gangs does not end.

Reports from Dili last night said the imposition of martial law had not eased the terror in East Timor, with militia gangs roaming at will.

Reports reaching United Nations authorities said the military was using trucks and navy ships as part of a campaign to push thousands of East Timorese into West Timor and further away to other provinces.

Indonesia’s Mines and Energy Minister Mr Kuntoro Mangkusubroto also signalled yesterday that Jakarta was prepared to scrap the 1989 Timor Gap treaty between Australia and Indonesia, which involves oil and gas extraction rights in the Timor Sea.

Australia’s pitch to the US came as APEC and non-APEC foreign ministers were preparing in Auckland to discuss tomorrow morning the uncontrolled violence which has wracked East Timor since the announcement on Monday of the territory’s overwhelming vote for independence from Indonesia.

Last night Australian officials were concerned for the safety of East Timor independence leader Mr Xanana Gusmao who was released from prison yesterday.

They said Mr Gusmao, widely expected to be the first president of an independent East Timor, would be in grave danger from militia or army killers when he returned to Dili.

The Minister for Defence, Mr John Moore, telephoned the US Secretary for Defence, Mr William Cohen, last night to seek the Pentagon’s support for US participation.

Mr Moore told BBC radio that 6,000 to 7,000 peacekeepers would be needed in East Timor and that Australia was prepared to play the leading role.

At the same time, Mr Howard was working with the UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, to assemble an international force.

So far, Canada, Britain, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines have indicated their willingness to join.

Sceptical Australian officials said it would be clear within 48 hours whether Indonesia’s declaration of martial law in East Timor had significantly reduced violence. If it failed to do so, President Habibie would be under intense international pressure to admit foreign peacekeepers immediately.

Australia is confident it could deploy up to 2,000 troops to East Timor in 72 hours.

Senior officials said international pressure was mounting on Indonesia to agree to peacekeepers and Mr Howard was now more optimistic that it would do so.

Australia’s appeal to the US won immediate and unqualified support from the Federal Opposition Leader, Mr Kim Beazley, who said Australia was entitled to expect US involvement in return for past Australian support under the military alliance arrangements. He said he was disappointed by the initial reluctance of the US.

Senior government officials said last night that the US had signalled its willingness to provide logistics and planning support, but that the Pentagon was concerned about overextending its resources.

Senior officials said Mr Howard was “quietly optimistic” the US would respond positively to Australia’s appeal and he believed it was “overwhelmingly desirable” that US forces be part of a peacekeeping force.

Despite the Pentagon’s reluctance, officials said Mr Howard felt Mr Clinton was disposed to co-operate and understood the sensitivities of US-Australia relations. Mr Howard also believed Dr Albright was sympathetic to Australia’s request.

But Mr Downer said last night Australia would have to go ahead without the US if it refused to participate.

Australian officials revealed that Mr Moore had failed in several attempts to speak to the Indonesian military chief, General Wiranto, who many believe is the key player in the East Timor crisis. His elusiveness contrasts with the regular contact between Mr Howard and Mr Downer and President Habibie and the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Ali Alatas.

Senior government sources yesterday revealed how they believe Indonesia’s wider political uncertainty is influencing the Indonesian leadership’s approach to the East Timor crisis.

One source said it was possible General Wiranto was not exercising as much control as might be expected over the military in East Timor and that his aim might be to help Mrs Megawati Soekarnoputri become president, with himself as vice-president.

***

Howard pleased with ‘limited’ US support

by Michelle Grattan in Auckland, September 13, 1999, SMH

Each time John Howard spoke to President Bill Clinton last week about a peacekeeping force for East Timor, he put the same strong message. Australians would find it very strange indeed, given history, if the Americans were not conspicuously involved.

Mr Clinton was understanding, but it took days of negotiations to get what Mr Howard now insists he regards as a satisfactory US commitment. Even yesterday, Mr Clinton was saying that any presence the US would have in East Timor would be a “limited” force.

Last Monday, UN Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan asked whether Australia would lead a force. Mr Howard immediately said yes.

By Tuesday morning, there had been indications from New Zealand, Canada and Britain that they would participate. The Thais said they would be interested and Mr Annan had spoken of Malaysia and the Philippines. The Foreign Minister, Mr Downer, had lobbied the US Secretary of State, Dr Madeleine Albright. There was support from her, but the Pentagon was resisting becoming involved at all.

After Cabinet on Wednesday, Mr Howard said “there will at least be logistical support . . . and some other support from the US. The extent of any ground force commitment from the US is unclear.”

Mr Clinton rang Mr Howard at 8.10 am on Thursday. Mr Howard said later the Americans would give “tangible” support.

By Friday morning, Mr Howard was impatient: “We don’t yet have a full-blooded American participation.”

Mr Clinton, about to fly to APEC, said Australia “and many of these other countries have been our allies in every difficulty . . . I believe we should support in an appropriate way”.

Later on Friday, Mr Howard said there would be American assistance, but whether it involved “boots on the ground . . . we’ll wait and see”.

By Saturday afternoon, Mr Howard was saying there had been “a very satisfactory movement over the past 48 hours” in the US position. “Our defence people have expressed . . . complete satisfaction”. The offer had gone “well beyond logistical support”.