Hi. Webdiarists Clem Colman and Ross Nelson have done their own analysis of what’s going on in this war Iraq for Webdiary. They have backgrounds in IT Security, scour the net for information, and have an interest in the history of conflict.

They’ve based their analysis on news reports, other information sources, and some background knowledge of warfare. What is stated, whilst based on facts where available, is their opinion.

Thanks guys. I hope you’ll become our resident “‘analysts” on how the war is going. Another Webdiarist has volunteered to track the debate on the legality of the war and will report soon. Is anyone interested in tracking and analysing the propaganda war, the media coverage, or some other aspect of this incredible “tipping point” in world affairs?

***

Overall Tactical

Iraqi forces are making use of bad weather to launch counterattacks against Coalition forces in a number of locations [breaking news – no real analysis except that Iraq may have overextended herself. If the forces are still in the open when weather clears Coalition Air Power will probably inflict significant damage]

Basra: The Coalition continue to talk up the prospect of revolt in Basra. The basis for this information still seems to be the claim that mortars were fired from one part of the city against the other. However, Al Jazeer, who have access to Basra, have denied the claims. In addition British Commanders near Basra were surprised by the news when questioned by media.

We can probably expect to see one more roll of the Psychological War dice for Basra. The prospect of revolt did result in Rumsfeld changing his rhetoric from weeks back to days, so perhaps this is a significant development.

Around Basra the Coalition claim to have destroyed a division, but they still only have an unconfirmed 3,500 prisoners in the entire theatre. A division typically runs 8,000-12,000, so even at a 30% casualty rate (a heavy number) there are still a minimum of 3,000-4,000 unaccounted for troops from this division. There are either a lot of bodies around Basra, or there are significant elements of the division still in place. The media should probably be challenging the claim of a destroyed division based on this analysis.

For Basra we can probably expect the UK units, with considerably more experience in close quarters infantry combat, to bear the brunt of any assault with support from US marines. However, the Coalition may just decide to lay siege instead.

Baghdad and Surrounds: Iraq probably made use of the unexpected lull to reposition forces to face the threat now that they knows US axis of advance more precisely.

Republican Guard positions around Baghdad have almost certainly come under conventional bombardment by Coalition air. It is not clear at this stage whether B52s are being flown in county to perform these bombardments, as their previous attacks were, we believe, stand off cruise missile attacks from near the Turkish Border. At this stage there may be concerns about the capabilities of Iraqi air defences which prevent the B52s being deployed for conventional bombardment near Baghdad.

Umm Qasar: Umm Qasar continues to prove to be a great propaganda win for Iraq. Although the Coalition has declared the area secure reports continue of sporadic fighting, and the Coalition will probably have to deploy more forces here than anticipated to protect against attack by irregular forces.

Claims in the Iraqwar.ru reports that these positions have been reinforced by Iraqi Armour, seem to be a bit far fetched based on all other information available.

Najaf: The heavy fighting around Najaf has lead to the first admitted destruction of US M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks. Reports say that Iraqi forces are firing Tow missiles from the back of pickup trucks and other civilian vehicles. Importantly, this indicates that Iraqi forces can attrition US Tanks at range without risking significant assets.

Also today there are reports of a column of 1000 vehicles of Iraqi Republican Guard leaving Baghdad headed to Najaf. This deployment was at least started under the cover of the recent sandstorm. This seems a significant deployment, and is discussed in more detail in the strategic section below.

Strategic

Reports of discussions of troop rotation in Australia suggest that it is now anticipated that this war will drag on longer than expected.

The Psychological War campaign, which the Coalition had invested so much in, in that it could be claimed that they under resourced their conventional forces due to their belief in its success, seems at this stage to have been an abject failure. In terms of why the Iraqi people would still support Saddam Hussein, they may wish to consider this analogy: Stalin killed lots of his own and other peoples between 1925 and 1941. He led a disastrous war in Finland (and learnt from it). His own people would have gladly shot him in the head if they could. But they still hated the Germans more…..

The failure of the Psy War has left the Coalition dangerously under resourced, particularly with respect to armour (at the start of the campaign 500 Main Battle Tanks against the Iraqi’s 2,600, even though the Coalition tanks are individually superior to Iraq tanks). In addition to that, the strategy of bypassing pockets of resistance to reach Baghdad has left the Coalition’s supply lines dangerously exposed. It may well be some time before the lead units within 80km of Baghdad are properly resupplied whilst the Coalition organises appropriately protected convoys (which will pull armour assets back from frontline units for escort duties).

The deployment of 1000 mobile Republican Guard units to Najaf under the cover of a sandstorm leaves little doubt that Iraqi C&C and Communications are still in place, at least to some extent. Furthermore, the Iraqi’s are so buoyed by successes, as well as identifying the Coalition strategy, that they feel confident redeploying assets away from Baghdad. However, this may have been over confident. In a static defence the Iraqis had little resupply concerns. This may change that.

The Units in place near Baghdad have insufficient superiority, and are probably in no condition to begin an assault for some days. However, there may be skirmishes as they attempt to probe the Iraqi defences.

At this stage it seems likely that the Coalition will await the arrival of the 1st and the 4th divisions before attempting any true assault on Baghdad. In short, they have significantly underestimated the enemy, and are unlikely to make the same mistake again.

Coalition forces continue to battle to secure bridges across the Euphrates, which have been reported secure more than once. It seems that they are meeting stiff resistance, and that Iraqi forces are mounting planned and successful counter-attacks against the Coalition.

Finally on a more personal note, it seems from the nature and character of language from Rumsfeld, particularly with chopping and changing between using weeks, then days, etc, that he may well be micro managing Franks.

In the meantime, Saddam Hussein has probably taken great confidence in making comparisons between the Coalition’s advance across Iraq, and Hitler’s advance across the Soviet Union. Seeing himself as Stalin, he may well see many parallels.

The late Peter Smark was one of Australia’s most admired and respected journalists. He still is. Webdiarist Judi Folster of Duffy in Canberra reread a Peter Smark piece in the Sydney Morning Herald after John Howard announced we were at war with Iraq:

I have before me a cutting from page 1 of the SMH dated 7/12/90 written by the late Peter Smark entitled ‘Death and Vomit: let’s not get sentimental about war’.

I have kept this piece of paper because to me it is the most exquisite piece of antiwar writing I have ever read -I also cut out the letters to the editor two days later – they summed up my feelings about that war so well and today as I listened to John Howard in Parliament Peter Smark’s words rang in my ears- and I quote:

“I hear the iron of certainty and resolve enter a politician’s voice and I know the young will die”, and, “You can hear the fools again now talk of a ‘quick, clean war’ in the Persian Gulf, or of a ‘swift surgical strike’. God preserve the young from the follies of middle-aged males. “

Death and vomit: the real meaning of war

by Peter Smark

We came to the hamlet near My Tho through fields green as limes. On the banks of the paddy-fields, palm trees nodded amiably. Under a fierce, noonday sun, three little girls chirped like crickets and giggled behind their hands at the heavy, awkward foreigners blundering into their world.

Tossed like garbage on the clay were the bodies. I remember the number and will never forget, 82. The battle had been the previous day and the flies were already at work. I expected the blood, the grey horror of exposed entrails, the stench. But I hadn’t prepared myself for the flies. I don’t know why I hadn’t thought about the flies. Or the rats.

And so, at the age of 24, I discovered what war means. I was lucky it was so late, I suppose. My father’s generation and my grandfather’s had learned the chilling truth in their teens. And they had to carry guns.

As I sweated and vomited that day in 1961, a maelstrom of unconnected thoughts churned through my mind and I can remember them now. I recalled the play-acting of infantry training at Puckapunyal and how the instructors had had to cook the books to make them show I could shoot straight.

In fact, I made the Korea-hardened trainers despair. But, years later, as I watched a cocky little jackanapes of a Vietnamese captain prance through his victory display and a wooden-faced American adviser jerk his strings, I thanked my God he had never sent me for a real soldier and I thank Him again now.

But fate has locked much war into my life and there are dog days when the tide of memories floods. They come when, somewhere, I hear the iron of certainty and resolve enter a politician’s voice and I know the young will die. I remember the flies and the rats. I heard that certainty and resolve in the voices of Bob Hawke and George Bush this week.

History will judge if they are right to feel so certain and so resolute, to be so dismissive of the long haul of blockade and sanctions. I don’t here argue for or against. I merely record some memories to remind myself and others what it is we do when we send young men off to war.

I remember the Plaine des Jarres in Laos and my friend the young Meo lieutenant lying without a leg and about to die from the mortar shell which tore his jeep apart. The morphine was in and his eyes were open and I swear he smiled a farewell to the reporters who had shared a bottle of whisky with him on the last night of his life.

And I remember Homer Bigart of The New York Times, friend and mentor, cynic and wit, gripping my arm until the bruises swelled blue, and chanting “Christ, Christ, Christ” as a machine-gun tore away a supporting section on one of our pleasant days in the Vietnamese countryside.

Homer, who shredded US ambassadors for practice and regarded four-star generals as breakfast, was angry and weeping not from fear for himself but because of the waste and futility of it all.

There are times for tears. Times like the night when General Sir Thomas Daly paced the streets of suburban Manuka in Canberra and cared not a jot that the prudent burghers and bureaucrats could see and hear the Chief of Staff of the Australian army weeping openly. An explosives blunder by friendly forces had killed or maimed most of a truckload of Australian troops in Vietnam, and Tom grieved for them as a father should.

War is much about mishaps and mistakes as generations of Australians from past conflicts can attest. You can hear the fools again now talk of a “quick, clean war” in the Persian Gulf, or of a “swift, surgical strike.” God preserve the young from the follies of middle-aged males.

Follies and malice, feuds and hatreds. I remember Belfast in 1968 when the B Specials swept through the Catholic areas and shot down people in an orgy of officially condoned mayhem.

That was a night for weeping, for to this day the people, all people, are paying the price for this as for so much else. They’ll talk up a storm for you, the middle-aged males, about the just cause and they’ll let the young die to fuel their self-righteousness.

I remember the siege of Seria in Borneo in the early 60s during the Brunei Rebellion. And how a British nurse, one of the hostages held by rebels in a Shell Oil installation, was sent out by her armed captors to carry a message to the encircling British forces, then turned and went back into captivity, not knowing if it was to her death.

I remember we looked at one another, we vultures and reptiles of the press, and didn’t have words enough because we knew we were watching courage and character greater than we could ever summon.

The Queen’s Own Highlanders, tough Scots all, were in awe of her and when they stormed the refinery and freed her, they cheered her like the Queen. Sometimes, war can summon up nobility.

But the memories which press out most urgently are ghastly. Of the tray of a truck in Zimbabwe piled high with dead while soldiers played cards in the shade below. Or the results of a landmine in Ovamboland, a street riot in Singapore, blood and waste, always waste.

And always the politicians and the functionaries, the sanctimoniousness, the fraud. Do you remember how those around Margaret Thatcher hid away the maimed from the Falklands so the victory parade in London would not be marred by the reality of what had happened down in the South Atlantic?

All but a handful of the press were kept from that, of course. And from the US high jinks in Grenada. Vietnam has taught our masters much in information management; whether it has taught them much about the horrors of war remains to be seen.

Australian reporters who have seen much of war are sprinkled still through the media: Peter Cole-Adams, Bruce Wilson, Peter George, Ben Hills, Alan Ramsey, a dozen more. In every one of them, the sound of Bob Hawke’s words will have set the memories stirring this week. Not just what he said, but how he said it.

The ships are moving closer in, we are told, because the UN wants that. Our cause is said to be just, no less than the stamping out of a risk to the stability of the world economy, the international backing for it unprecedented.

Perhaps it is so. But we should be in no doubt about the danger to those who now fly our flag. It was when the Falklands War was over that we learned fully how ghastly a weapon is the Exocet missile, learned how ships had become infernos. Our ships will be serving in the area where two Iraqi Exocets hit a US warship late in the Iran-Iraq war; that ship barely stayed afloat.

Perhaps caution will stir in Saddam Hussein and we will be saved the horror and our young men the terror of war. If it does not, and an Iraq toughened by a decade of fighting decides to resist, the possibility of crippling damage to oilfields could produce the very destabilisation of the world economy which the present undertaking is supposed to prevent.

But for now the cry is “Havoc” and the dogs of war are straining at their leashes. Younger reporters than I will cover this war, and I pray God will keep them and those they accompany safe and bring them home whole. And I pray, too, that their memories will not be of carnage wrought because middle-aged males could not contain their impatience.

If that marks me as “soft” or “wet”, let it be so for I’ve seen enough of hard men and the marks they leave behind.

Today, David Bennett QC’s predecessor as Commonwealth Solicitor General, Gavan Griffith QC – who represented the Labor and the Howard government in the High Court, gives Webdiary his written opinion that the Government’s claim that the war is legal is “untenable”, and that the legal advice he was forced to release is Alice in Wonderland nonsense. For my discussion of the deeply unsatisfactory nature of the government’s advice see The politics of war and for the Government’s history of abuse of legal advice, see It’s legal, believe me, The government’s legal advice is at smh.

John Howard defended his legal advice this week: ‘I don’t think you can discount somebody whose daily job is to advise not on the theory but on the practice of international law (to) the Australian government.”

For John Howard, the ends invariably justify the means.

NOTES ON THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ AND SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 678 AND 1441

by Gavan Griffith QC, Melbourne

The tabled joint “Memorandum of Advice” of the First Assistant Secretary, Office of International Law, Attorney-General’s Department and the Senior Legal Adviser, DFAT, has insufficient substance to bear the weight of the Prime Minister’s reliance to justify the invasion of Iraq by Australian defence forces.

This Advice invokes the authority of Security Council Resolution (SCR) 678 of 15 July 1991 to justify the unilateral use of force by Australia. It is plain that the authority of para 3 for the use of force of that 12 year old resolution expired with the Gulf War and successive resolutions of the Security Council leading to SCR 1441 of 2 November 2002.

Colin Powell in A Line in the Sand wrote that Resolution 678 “displayed the usual fuzziness of documents written by many hands and made it clear that the invasion was only to free Kuwait.” It is now facile to assert that without the further resolution authorising the use of force, now abandoned, SCR 678 has revived (or may be regarded as continuing) as authority for the use of force at the whim of Australia as a self-appointed member of the “Coalition of the Willing”. The question “Willing for What?” has its answer: Willing to act in breach of plain obligations of international law and comity between nations.

I cannot characterize the advice as an opinion. The short paragraphs 14 to 18 of the brief seven page advice read as weak best arguments for the use of force. Para 34 of SCR 678, cited in para 18, denies the continued authority of that resolution to support present action by individual states, as does the entire SCR 1441.

The final sentence of the advice concluding that the authority of SCR 678 to use force “would only be negated by a Security Council Resolution requiring Member States to refrain from using force against Iraq” is a fanciful proposition, an Alice in Wonderland inversion of meaning of plain words in the resolutions themselves. It is unsupportable. The authors are making it up.

It is significant that the authors of this Advice, on the important issue of giving legal sanction to war, do not even entitle it as ‘Opinion’. Its brevity and lack of force is exceeded only by the one-page ‘Opinion’ of the United Kingdom’s Attorney-General tabled in the United Kingdom Parliament, that makes the completely untenable assertion that “all resolution 1441 requires is a report to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq’s failures, but not to express further decisions to authorize force”.

To this end the Australian and United Kingdom legal advices are entirely untenable. They are arrant nonsense. They furnish no threads for military clothes. It is difficult to comprehend that the fanciful assertions (they are not arguments) of the two advices have been invoked by Australia and the United Kingdom to support an invasion of another state. It does not appear from his published remarks that President Bush made any such attempt to clothe American action with the authority of the Security Council. This has the advantage of making the unilateral basis of his country’s actions plain.

I note that the Memorandum of Advice is not subscribed by Henry Burmester QC, former head of the Office of International Law and now Chief General Counsel of the Attorney-General’s Department and the most senior and experienced international lawyer in Commonwealth service. Nor by Professor James Crawford SC, Professor of International Law at Cambridge, who commonly advises and appears for the Government in International law matters. I could suggest none available to the Commonwealth better qualified to give disinterested and expert advice.

Without knowing their views, I would be inclined to defer to their expert opinion. I am at a loss that this important matter of legal support has not been supported at this highest expert level readily available to the Government. Instead, the Government has been content to table a mere “memorandum” of assertion, signed of at the departmental level of First Assistant Secretaries.

I comment further that the authority of the opinion by 43 Australian international lawyers as to the plain breach of international obligations by Australia absent a further Security Council in no way answered by the loose references to emerging new principles by Professor Ivan Shearer or the American and Australian signatories to the letter curiously published as an op-ed. piece in The Australian on 18 March.

Like-minded lawyers of ambition in America scramble to justify, in arrears, the evolving unilateralism of the USA’s foreign policy. I know few of the American signatories. The Australian signatories have, with but slight exception, common interests more in areas of taxation, defamation and commercial law and none is known in the field of public international law (excepting Professor Waller who has a reputation in the specialised area humanitarian law). The reputations of the Australian and United Kingdom Attorneys-General on the issues of use of force also are elsewhere than in public international law.

I compare the opinion by Robinder Singh QC of Matrix Chambers, London, to be found at web site publicinterestlawyers, which is reasoned and compelling argument for the lack of support provided by the aged SCR 678.

***

I fell into that war-on-TV trap last night – stared at the screen until 5am – couldn’t get away from it. I watched BBC world coverage on the ABC, and was offended at the tone of some of the commentary.

Nothing was happening, and some talking heads seemed kind of miffed, asking Rumsfeld whether he’d lost the propaganda momentum and the like.

Hang on – to try and take out Saddam early, and do a slow build to encourage the Iraqi people to end this quickly, could save lives. Thousands of them. As Rumsfeld said in his early morning press conference, Iraqis are used to doing what Saddam tells them because they know that otherwise they’ll die. As it sinks in that he will be gone soon, they may well consider defying him. I’d like the Iraqi people to have possible opportunity to get this over with the minimum of damage. Wouldn’t everyone?

War as entertainment. Weird vibe. For the first time I saw Rumsfeld uncut, in his first press briefing. This guy is impressive, to say the least. Then came the news that Turkey had voted to send its troops into Iraq. Oh no. Nightmare territory.

I’ve had lots of feedback to my suggestion yesterday that anti-war citizens shouldn’t take to the streets while the war is on (Watching the war). A colleague came up with an alternative – take to the streets, but with one message on every banner – bring our troops home. I’m on a plane soon – I’ll publish your thoughts on the protest issue and where to from here for the anti-war movement on Monday.

Yesterday David Skinner advised he was having trouble accessing iraqi websites. Steve Davey reckons uruklink (http://www.uruklink.net/iraqdaily/home.htm) is still accessible. Indymedia reports that the Yanks have pulled the plug on telephone communications.

I’d like your views on the media coverage of the war – I’ll do a Webdiary on the matter next week.

Stay safe this weekend, and let’s hope our troops stay that way over there.

To end, Webdiarist Clem Coleman comments on Howard’s out-of-the-blue claim in his address to the nation last night that accessing US intelligence was a reason to go to war with Iraq.

***

Clem Coleman

The PM has now introduced the importance of intelligence sharing with the US and UK as a justification for our war on Iraq. Here is the 30 second guide for people that do not know about this stuff.

Five countries participate in a massive signals intelligence system (as in intercepted radio, mobile phone, satellite communications) which is widely known as Echelon. These countries are: US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ.

Part of this agreement relates to the sharing of all relevant intelligence with the participating country. That is, if Echelon intercepts intelligence relevant to NZ this should provided this to NZ regardless of where it is intercepted. However, to my understanding all intelligence initially is processed by the US. I could be wrong about this last point. What this means about intelligence sharing from “human” assets I also wouldn’t speculate about.

This arrangement is pretty important to all of these countries, but with the information flow it seems the US probably gains the greatest benefit. For this system to work the positioning of antennae and other interception equipment in places like Australia, NZ and the UK is essential.

Finally, the implied assertion by the PM, that this intelligence sharing would stop if we didn’t support the US, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The US needs the positioning of these interception facilities in our parts of the world.

Furthermore, if this knife was twisted you would have expected to hear NZ and Canada crying foul also, given that they have both come out in opposition to the war.

Robert Byrd, a Democrat, is the father of the US Senate. He delivered the following speech to the Senate on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. He first detailed his dismay at US foreign policy in a speech to the Senate on February 14, published at A lonely voice in a US Senate silent on war.

Today, I weep for my country….

by Robert Byrd

US Senate, March 19, 2003 3:45pm

I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marvelled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America’s image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to “orange alert”. There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?

A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America’s true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

 

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”.

This is Mark Latham’s speech to Parliament today on Australia’s declaration of war on Iraq. After the speech, comments the man I believe should be the next leader of the Labor Party made in Parliament on the matter yesterday.

War on Iraq

by Mark Latham

In her outstanding book The March of Folly the American historian, Barbara Tuchman, looks at the reasons why nations and governments often act in a manner contrary to their self-interest.

She writes that throughout human endeavour “government remains the paramount area of folly because it is there that men seek power over others – only to lose it over themselves”.

For Tuchman, persistence in error is the problem. When leaders abandon reason and rationality, when they fail to recognise mistakes, when they refuse to withdraw from bad policy – no matter the damage they are doing to themselves and their nations – this is the march of folly.

Vietnam was an example of this process. Fearful of McCarthyism and right-wing opinion at home, successive American leaders – from Eisenhower to Nixon – refused to be the first president to concede ground to communism.

This is why they fought an unwinnable war for so long. This is why they pushed their country deeper and deeper into the folly of a counter-productive foreign policy.

I believe that something similar is happening in the United States today. Post-September 11, the American people want revenge for the attack on their country and the Bush Administration is determined to give it to them.

It is determined to wage war on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Even if this means damaging America’s long-term interests. Even if this means diverting resources from the real war against terror. Even if this means trashing the UN system. Even if this means dividing the Western world and gutting NATO. Even if this means generating a new wave of anti-American sentiment around the world.

After the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, people were worried about what Al-Qaeda might do next. Today they are worried about what President Bush might do next.

This is the march of folly and shamefully, the Australian Government is following the United States down this path. This is the worst piece of Australian foreign policy since Vietnam.

The Prime Minister has made a crude judgement post-September 11 that the world has just one super-power and, in the war against terror, Australia needs to get with the power, no matter the cost to our independence and international standing. He is not interested in arguments about the soundness of US policy or the need for global power-sharing and cooperation. The Howard Government is determined to follow the leader.

This approach is spelt out in the Government’s recent Strategic Review, a remarkably simplistic document that even goes as far as endorsing the Son of Star Wars: American missile defence. Incredibly, this is not to protect Australian cities and territory. Rather, it recognises that under this Government, wherever the US army goes across the globe, the ADF will automatically follow.

This is not a white paper but a tissue paper, to cover the Government’s radical shift in defence policy. The old DOA was Defence of Australia. The new DOA is Defence of America.

The Howard Government has turned Australia’s national security upside down. It has handed over our sovereignty to the United States and left our country exposed to the adventurism of the Bush Administration.

For some of the media-elites, to say these things is seen as anti-American. In my case, I greatly admire the achievements of the United States people. I’m not anti-American. I’m anti-Bush. I’m anti-the right-wing hawks of the Republican Party. I’m anti-war.

The United States is a great and powerful nation. But being powerful doesn’t always mean that nations and politicians get it right.

It is in Australia’s interests to question US foreign policy and the competence of world leaders. Australian lives are now on the line. Our troops in Iraq are effectively under the command of George W Bush. No nation should just sleepwalk into war.

An unnecessary war

When people ask: what is the alternative to war, I say that the answer is quite simple. The alternative to war is peaceful disarmament.

On 7 March the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reported that substantial progress had been made and that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully within a matter of months.

He said: “We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed.” He refuted US intelligence claims about the use of mobile production units for biological weapons, stating that, “No evidence of proscribed activities has so far been found.”

There is a huge credibility gap in the argument for war. We now know – as incredible as it may seem – that large slabs of the British Government’s dossier on Iraq were plagiarised from university students.

In this country, a senior ONA officer, Andrew Wilkie, has blown the whistle on the true nature of Australian intelligence reports. In his assessment:

Iraq does not pose a security threat to the US, the UK, Australia or any other country at this point in time. Their military is very small, their weapons of mass destruction program is fragmented and contained and there is no hard evidence of any active cooperation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda The bottom line is that this war against Iraq is totally unrelated to the war on terror.

So why the mad rush to war? Why does Australia need to act outside the UN system when the independent report of the weapons inspectors has said that peaceful disarmament is possible?

Why does Australia need to launch an unprovoked attack on another nation – a nation that doesn’t threaten us? Why have we sent our best troops and equipment to the other side of the world when they should be here, guarding our country against real threats, against the real terrorists?

Why do we need to be part of a war that involves the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians? Why are our military forces striking a country where half the population is under the age of 15? That’s 12 million boys and girls, their lives now at risk because of George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.

None of these things need to happen. Peaceful disarmament is possible. This war is simply unnecessary.

More problems than it solves

It will create more problems than it solves. It will cause enormous suffering and instability in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. It will breed a new generation of terrorists and increase the likelihood of terrorist activity on Australian soil.

The war against terror must target terrorists, not the women and children of nation states. It must solve problems, like catching Bin Laden, wiping out Al-Qaeda and addressing the Palestinian question. It must attack the core reasons for terrorism, rather than being diverted into conflict in Iraq.

The Republican Right in the United States has tried to legitimise its policies by talking of the so-called Clash of Civilisations – the struggle between Western values and Islamic culture. I regard this theory as nonsense.

The real clash is within a civilisation – the civil war within Islam itself, the struggle between militant fundamentalists and moderate Muslims. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the moderates win.

We need to find a lasting peace in the Middle East, not start a new war in the region. We need to address the burning problem of Third World poverty, overcoming the injustices that fundamentalists thrive on. This is why the invasion of Iraq is such bad policy. It is contrary to each of these goals.

A dangerous doctrine

There is another reason for opposing this war: it is based on a dangerous doctrine.

Sixty years ago mankind developed the capacity to destroy itself, most notably through nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Since then the world has managed to survive, mainly through policies of deterrence and containment. In the post-war years, this was known as the Truman doctrine.

The United Nations has also played a role. It may not be perfect, but it is still the best system we have for fostering international goodwill and cooperation. To ignore and then belittle the will of the United Nations at this crucial time represents an appalling shift in Australian foreign policy.

Even worse and without any real debate, the Howard Government has embraced the new Bush doctrine of pre-emption. This doctrine overturns 60 years of successful US foreign policy, 60 years of deterrence and containment. It gives the US a mandate to launch pre-emptive strikes on other nations – nations that it deems to be evil. Bush has abandoned President Clinton’s emphasis on multilateralism and gone down the dangerous path of unilateralism.

Make no mistake. A world based on threats of military action, a world based on pre-emptive strikes is a world about to do itself terrible harm.

The folly of this approach can be seen on the Korean peninsula. Two-and-a-half years ago at the Sydney Olympics, the North and South Korean teams marched together. This was seen as a wonderful sign for the future. It gave the world hope for political and economic cooperation, resolving an international trouble spot.

Eighteen months ago, the North Korean leadership was in China studying the benefits of economic openness and liberalisation. Again, it seemed that the North Korean problem would solve itself. Like other communist regimes, under the weight of economic failure, it was going to reform from within.

Then 14 months ago President Bush included North Korea in his Axis of Evil speech, threatening military pre-emption. Not surprisingly, North Korea is now racing to defend itself, weaponising its nuclear power. In response, Japan has said that it too needs nuclear weapons.

This is the problem with pre-emption. It creates an international environment based on suspicion and escalation. In our country, bizarrely enough, the Prime Minister has said that we need a nuclear missile shield to defend ourselves against North Korea.

This is the madness of escalation. And none of it has anything to do with the war against terror. Not the development of Japanese nuclear capacity. Not the creation of an Australian missile shield. Osama bin Laden must be laughing himself silly.

We cannot run the world according to threats and first-strike thinking. Not a world in which 26 nations have chemical weapons and 20 have biological weapons. Not a world in which India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. Not a world plagued by the non-stop violence of the Middle East.

History tells us that deterrence and containment are the only answers. Along with the age-old hope of cooperation between nations.

This is where I fundamentally disagree with Bush’s policy. In outlining his new doctrine in September last year, he said that, “In the new world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action.”

I believe in this new world, as well as the old, the only path to safety is international cooperation. Multilateralism, not unilateralism. Containment, not pre-emption. Peace, not an unnecessary war in Iraq.

International power-sharing

Along with most Australians, I do not want a world in which one country has all the power. I do not want a world based on Axis of Evil rhetoric and the constant threat of pre-emption.

There is a better way. It is called the United Nations. This means respecting the findings of Hans Blix. This means respecting international opinion – in this case, the position of France, Germany, Russia and China. It means sharing power across the globe, instead of allowing one nation to appoint itself as the global policeman.

There was a time, of course, when George W Bush seemed to believe in these ideals. During the 2000 Presidential campaign he said that he wanted the United States to take a lower profile in international affairs, to be “a more humble power.”

His radical shift in policy has, in fact, humiliated his nation. He has provoked anti-American sentiment internationally. He has divided the Western alliance and badly damaged NATO.

I ask this simple question: who was the last world leader to unite France, Germany, Russia and China? This is an unprecedented coalition. From the right-wing Gaullists in France, to the social democrats in Germany, to Putin’s Russia, to the Communist Party of China, international opinion has united against the United States.

Around the globe, people do not want a world in which one country has all the power. They want power-sharing and cooperation.

This should be the basis of Australia’s foreign policy. The Howard Government believes in a uni-polar world in which the primacy of the United States is beyond challenge. I believe in a multi-polar world, recognising not just American power but also, China as an emerging super-power, plus the supra-national power of the European Union.

Australia is one of the few countries in the world well-placed to have strong relations with all three. In the Labor Party, this is not just an opportunity for the future. It is part of our political legacy.

Just as Curtin established the US relationship, just as Calwell established the European migration program, just as Whitlam established relations with the People’s Republic of China, the next Labor Government will have to realign and rebalance Australia’s foreign policy. Nothing is more important than getting these relationships right.

The US relationship

The great irony of the Government’s strategy is that it actually weakens our relationship with the United States.

Like any alliance, ANZUS works best when it is based on an equal partnership, when both partners bring something to the table. Under the Howard Government, Australia brings nothing but subservience. This is hurting the strength and viability of the relationship.

In practice, we matter to the Americans when we matter in Asia. The alliance is strongest when Australian diplomacy is able to influence outcomes in our part of the world. This is when the United States has reason to rely on us, to treat Australia as an equal partner.

Under this Government, of course, our influence in Asia is minor. Our neighbours shake their heads in disbelief when they see Australia echoing the American line, when they see our Prime Minister calling himself a deputy sheriff.

These are Asian nations that fought long and hard against colonialism. They are proud nations with little respect for countries that act like client states. They have independent foreign policies of their own, and they expect the same from Australia.

Mr Howard thinks the ultimate guarantor of Australia’s security is the US alliance. That’s nonsense. The ultimate guarantor of Australia’s security is the soundness of our foreign policy and the strength of our armed forces.

We need an alliance with the United States. But we also live in a new world, with new threats and new doctrines. The Howard Government has not handled these challenges well.

The next Labor Government will need to repair the damage, to rebalance the relationship. I support the American alliance, but it must be an alliance between equals – a genuine partnership, rather than the deputy sheriff role we have today.

Conclusion

The key divide in Australian politics is now clear. The Liberals have become an American war party. Labor stands for global power-sharing and cooperation. We stand for national security based on collective security. We stand for an independent foreign policy.

The Liberals stand for war. They stand for unprovoked attacks on other countries, because the United States wants it that way. The Prime Minister is too weak to say No to George W Bush.

This is the march of folly. The folly of bad foreign policy. The folly of a government that refuses to concede its error of judgement. The folly of a government that is sending Australia into an unnecessary and unwanted war, with all the horror of military and civilian casualties.

This is a war that will create more problems than it solves. It will create a new generation of terrorists. It has already divided our nation and broken the Western alliance.

I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to change its mind. Listen to the words of Barbara Tuchman: “In the search for wiser government we should look for the test of character first. And the test should be moral courage.”

Surely there is someone in this Government who can pass the test of moral courage, who can stand up and oppose this war. If just eight Government members were willing to cross the floor, the will of this parliament, the will of our democracy would prevail. We could stop Australia’s involvement in this unjust and unnecessary war.

Six months ago in this place, 24 Government members voted against stem cell research because of what they considered to be the sanctity of life, the sanctity of embryonic stem cells.

Today we are not talking about single cells. We are talking about real human lives. We are talking about the lives of 12 million Iraqi children, little boys and girls and their families.

Where are these 24 MPs today? They’re no longer defending the sanctity of life. They’ve joined the American war party.

I oppose the Government’s motion. I oppose the war in Iraq and I urge members opposite – those who can find the moral courage, those who truly believe in the sanctity of life – to do the same.

***

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2002-2003Cognate bill:APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2002-2003: Second Reading

Mr LATHAM (Werriwa) (4.00 p.m.) Let me give the Main Committee a list of parliamentary names and electorates: the member for Warringah, the member for Gwydir, the member for Paterson, the member for Macquarie, the member for Mitchell, the member for Parramatta, the member for Makin, the member for Mallee, the member for Wannon, the member for Fadden, the member for Dawson, the member for Lindsay, the member for Robertson, the member for Gippsland, the member for Hinkler, the member for Indi, the member for Sturt, the member for Canning, the member for Hume, the member for Barker, the member for Fisher, the member for Dobell, the member for Lyne and the member for Hughes. Now I move to the other place: Senator Alston, Senator Calvert, Senator Eggleston, Senator Lightfoot, Senator McGauran, Senator Barnett, Senator Boswell, Senator Chapman, Senator Coonan, Senator Ellison, Senator Heffernan, Senator Sandy Macdonald, Senator Minchin and Senator Santoro.

These are the 38 government members and senators who opposed the stem cell research bill just last year but who now support a war in Iraq.

On stem cells, the 38 claimed to be driven by the sanctity of life-a belief that embryo cells, too small to be seen, and which will never develop into a human life, need to be preserved at any cost. Yet, on Iraq, where tens of thousands of innocent civilians, babies, children and women will most certainly be slaughtered by the US war machine, these same 38 members of parliament have no concern for the sanctity of life. These are real lives, not single cells, frozen forever in research laboratories. These are real human lives-babies resting in their cots, children playing in the streets and women caring for their families.

***

APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2002-2003Cognate bill:APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2002-2003: Second Reading

… The media establishment, of course, is a big part of the problem-the self-serving commentariat that claims the right for the suburbs but who, in practice, never live west of Annandale or Yarraville. This is why the right wing elites in Australia are so out of touch with public opinion.

Just look at the disgraceful coverage of the Iraqi issue by the Murdoch press. Under the ownership and control of an American citizen, they have acted against Australia’s best interests; they have acted against the interests of our country. I noticed recently an analysis by Roy Greenslade in the Guardian newspaper on 17 February. He pointed out that there are 175 Murdoch newspaper titles around the world and that-surprise, surprise-175 of them have backed the war in Iraq. One hundred per cent have shamefully backed unilateral American policy with regard to Iraq. Greenslade writes:

How lucky can Murdoch get! He hires 175 editors and, by remarkable coincidence, they all seem to love the nation which their boss has chosen as his own.

The truth is that we need more diversity, more choice and more accountability in the Australian media. We need to transfer power from the insiders to the Australian people. We need to democratise Australia’s media laws. Shamefully, the Howard government is moving in the opposite direction.

Is this war legal? John Howard wouldn’t release his legal advice on Monday, but changed his mind overnight and released it yesterday. You can read it at smh.

The date of the advice is March 12, last Wednesday (the date on the link is incorrect). Surely Howard must have got advice before then – a UN refusal to endorse has been a possibility for quite a while now. Indeed, you’d think he would have got it before he predeployed troops, because that act committed him to Bush’s war regardless of what the UN did.

The second interesting thing is the junior level of the advice. Such important advice is usually given by Australia’s top law officer, the Solicitor General, or the top legal officer in the Attorney-General’s department, the Chief General Counsel. This advice is by a middle ranking Attorney-General’s officer (three rungs below a Department secretary) and a legal officer in the department of foreign affairs and trade. Why?

Perhaps because a more senior lawyer would not have put his name to such unequivocal advice? The “yes’, no-ifs-or-buts nature of the advice has seen it shredded by Australia’s most senior international law experts (Experts at odds as PM releases legal advice) and the Secretary General of the UN confirmed this week that the war’s legitimacy was in question.

Th political difficulty of Labor’s position on this issue was exemplified on The 7.30 Report tonight.On Sunday, Labor’s foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said a war without UN sanction would be illegal. Yesterday, Simon Crean said he was getting legal advice, but tonight he refused to answer Kerry O’Brien’s questions on the matter, and when pressed, said it was not important (7.30 Report).

Why? Because now that we’re at war, the public will naturally rally behind our troops. To argue the illegality of the war would be portrayed as treacherous.

Last night, smh.com.au reader Bryan Palmer sent me a brilliant political analysis of how Labor will play its politics on the war from now on, and in the process rightly argued that my suggestion that Labor demand an election and block all legislation till it got one was a case of heart ruling head. Tonight his analysis, then other reader comments on the politics and legality of this nightmare.

Jim Snow writes:

A very large survey of Arab opinion conducted by the University of Maryland, apparently under the auspices of the Brookings Institution, was published on March 13. A complete scholarly description of methodology is given in the report which is given as a pdf file in the first link: “telhami survey ” at brookings. A discussion of this (and what went on in the security council) – The Brookings Iraq Series Briefing of March 13, 2003 – is at the second link: “transcript”. I have been surprised that this has apparently not surfaced in Australian media, as it is evidence from an unlikely source, a right wing republican think tank.

***

Bryan Palmer

You said: “I believe Labor should seriously consider demanding an immediate election, and refuse to pass any legislation unless John Howard submits himself to the Australian people.” (A question of legitimacy)

While your passion may be admirable, your suggestion is electoral suicide for Labor.

Blocking legislation only enables the Coalition parties to build a war chest (excuse the pun) of double dissolution election triggers. The only method that might force Howard to the polls at an inconvenient time is to block supply (as occurred in 1975). However, this trigger can only be unleashed (under the new budget timetable) in May/June each year. Blocking additional estimates (in February/March each year) is close to meaningless, and the normal business of Government would survive such a block.

By May or June 2003, the Iraqi war outcome should be resolved. If it is a short war that exposes duplicity by Saddam (the most likely outcome), I believe that the people who were opposed to the war without UN support (but not opposed enough to indicate a change in voting preference) will forgive Howard, and embrace him for his courage against the tyrant. Winners are grinners, and the punters love winners. Call it the Thatcher/Falklands or Bush/Kuwait afterglow.

So, if Labor blocks legislation now, it creates a set of double dissolution triggers, but has little other effect. It would not force an election.

Second, if the war is short and Howard wins, he can cash in these dissolution triggers at a time of his choosing in order to maximise a Liberal win. This has the added benefit that double dissolution triggers can be turned into legislation quickly and without parliamentary debate (as Whitlam showed in 1974). No pesky greens or democrats to worry about.

Third, a double dissolution deals a deft blow to the transition to Costello side show.

Finally, in the lead up to the double dissolution poll, Labor’s opposition to the war can be painted as ill informed carping from the sidelines, and dark (dog-whistle like political) inferences can be drawn about Crean’s implicit support for Saddam.

While you may hate the impending war, you should recognise the politics probably plays 100% Howard’s way for at least another three months. For Labor to act pre-emptively (another unforgivable pun) would only be detrimental to Labor’s subsequent electoral chances. For the next three months Labor must play a difficult waiting game. Crean has a high wire act of some skill to pull off: support the soldiers but not the war nor Saddam’s past excesses.

If we are still at war in three months, or if something horrible happens before then (numbers of Aussie deaths, a nuclear explosion, an escalation in militant Islamic terrorism, etc.) then Crean has a chance of becoming an accidental Prime Minister. Otherwise, Howard will be the winner from his all the way with the USA approach.

Conclusion: in recommending advice to Labor, you Margo Kingston should not let your heart rule your head.

Margo: I sent this email to Bryan:

Did you think Crean’s focus on subservience, loss of independence, etc from the US is the right way to go politically? It scares me a bit, because we are so dependent on the US for our security. I wonder if voters will lose their confidence.

Brian replied:

What ever the language, whether its Crean’s subservience or Latham’s lickers and suck-holes, I think it has limited appeal with the punters, and that appeal is limited largely to Labor’s core voters. I do not believe the theme of subservience and loss of independence shifts voting intention. Not at this stage in the war. In the future, maybe, but not now.

I suspect that Crean is playing the long haul and the long odds on this war. If the war is long, goes badly, or if Australians become the target of another Bali like event, his arguments will be a strong rallying cry in the next election. Conversely, if the war goes well for Howard, Crean does not want to be left with words that are regrettable.

For Crean, one down side of this hedged bet approach is that it is unlikely to generate much electoral traction for Labor in the short term. Another is that it reinforces the perception that Howard and Brown are the real conviction politicians of Australian politics.

In summary: Crean seems to have chosen a low risk, low gain strategy. If I was to bet on the outcome, I would put my money on Howard. The other winner will be Bob Brown. For Crean, I think the odds are against this being the career reviver he needed.

***

Mark White

You wrote: “Some people are so angry at the sheer contempt their leader has shown them that they’re emailing the Governor-General to demand he veto Howard’s war. This is ridiculous. Australians bear the responsibility for electing this man, and this Parliament.” (A question of legitimacy)

A better move is to email the leader of the ALP, Democrats and Greens demanding they refuse to pass a budget bill containing appropriations for an illegal war. This will then create a replay of 1975, Crean will be appointed PM and can pull the troops out immediately.

This is the fastest, cleanest constitutional way out of this mess.

***

John Thornton in Doonside, NSW

The government is in the process of preparing a budget to be delivered in May. Wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic if John Howard, a member of Malcolm Fraser’s government, were to lose government after Labor, the Democrats, the Greens and the Independents blocked supply in the Senate and forced the Liberals to an election which could fought on one issue.

***

Damien Hogan

Surely our fate rests with Liberal voters. Only they have any leverage over the Prime Minister.

Even then it will be a hard case for them to make – they must convince the party pollsters that they are really willing to elect a Labor government – headed by Simon Crean!

They will surely be disbelieved. Polling will show that whilst certain sections of the faithful are against the war, very few will actually vote against John Howard in a future election when broader issues come into play.

And that seems to be be John Howard’s real gamble – not on the outcome of the invasion – but on the sustained moral outrage of Liberal voters.

He seems to assess his chances as quite good. Is he right? Only Liberal voters can tell us.

Steve Wallace

Looks like it’s a waste of time contacting the Libs about this war. They come back at you with this sort of trash.

I emailed this to federal Liberal politicians:

Subject: May God forgive you

Senators and Members,

Lest we forget that you did nothing to stop your PM from committing murder upon Iraqis by his illegal, immoral, unjustifiable, unprovoked attack. Australia’s first war of AGGRESSION. Our first shot at STARTING a war. The first time ever we broke the peace and ATTACKED another country.

And not one of you had the courage to speak out. Not a Christian voice in your whole number. Nobody with a strand of morality. Not one law abiding soul. May God forgive you for not having the guts to speak out against this war. The blood is now on your hands.

I received this reply from Ross Cameron, the Liberal member for Paramatta:

Dear Steve,

It must be nice having perfect moral vision but so frustrating for you to have to live with lesser beings. Enjoy the warm inner glow.

***

Tim Gillin in Sydney

It is ironic that 21st March, which may be the first full day of fighting in Iraq, has been proclaimed “Harmony Day” by the Feds (harmonyday). As a friend says, “Harmony here, chaos everywhere else”.

Of course this coincidence is not as odd as you might imagine at first sight. All the really great empires have embraced universal ideals and have pushed “multi-culturalism” since the time of Xerxes and Alexander the Great. It’s only those unreconstructed xenophobes in the provinces who give the Emperor headaches!

***

Stephen James

I’ve read the Letters to the Editor and I’ve read the contributions to your site, and most of them are good, worthy and thoughtful. I still think they are skirting around the obvious.

Not even John Howard seriously thinks that 2000 of our boys and girls will make any difference. Yet he is determined to send them, and the reason is simple vanity.

John Howard is approaching the end of his political career. He has done nothing of note apart from surviving for an unusually long time. The Americans have picked this up. They know nothing about international relations or diplomacy, but boy do they know how to flatter a sucker. They have convinced Howard that he is important, that he is on the world stage, and that he is made of the Right Stuff.

I make no moral judgment about it. In sexual terms, it’s a bit like a gorgeous 24 year old girl telling a balding, fat, middle aged bloke that he’s a bit of a hunk. Common sense would tell the bloke that there’s something wrong, but common sense is the first thing to go out the window in a case like that. Substitute power for sex, and it’s clear why we are in this mess.

Menzies over Suez and Holt over Vietnam had the same problem. They both wanted to be remembered as important. So do a lot of us. It’s just that most of us don’t get the chance to cause massive damage as a result of a simple and common human failing.

***

Meagan Phillipson

I think this might be the beginning of the end for the Howard government. I mean, they are waging a war in a manner only 9% of Australians support and Costello has already indicated that there will be cuts in May’s budget to “certain programs” (read pesky non-essentials like education, healthcare etc.) to pay for Australia’s military commitment.

When the “mums and dads” and the battlers go down to the medical centre to see a doctor only to find out they have to fork out for private billing, they ain’t gonna be happy. First Johnny doesn’t listen, then he wages war nobody wants and underwrites it by cutting the budget – do you think middle Australia will stand for this in 2004? When it comes to the hip pocket nerve, voters seem to have a long memory.

***

Mark McGrath, Union Sector Manager, Social Change Online

Dear John,

For us voters we have now made up our mind and reached the final days of decision. For more than seven years, many of us citizens have pursued patient and honorable efforts to tolerate your government of lies, deception and corrupt behaviour. Your government pledged to be an honest government and renew people’s faith in our democratic system of government as a condition for being elected by us citizens in 1996.

Since then, many of us Australians have engaged in 7 years of patience and tolerance whilst your Ministerial code of conduct became a sham and a political liability. We have accepted dozens of your assurances in parliament that you are acting in our best interests and have given you the benefit of the doubt. We have voted for you numerous times based on your promises to do the right thing by us and despite your assurances, our good faith has not been returned. Instead we have been given less public services, less share of the wealth we generate and less accountability.

Your government has used diversion tactics, spin and plain lies to deflect attention and manipulate public opinion. It has uniformly defied United Nations resolutions and conventions that ask Australia to be a good global citizen. Over the years, you have derided and undermined those in the public service that have tried to keep your government honest. Honest and genuine efforts to reform your government have been blocked and denied again and again – because we are not dealing with honest men.

Intelligence gathered by us citizens leaves no doubt that your government continues to deceive the Australian people and that you possess motives that run counter to our interests. Your government has already used weapons of mass propaganda to win elections under false pretences such as the Children Overboard affair. Your government has a history of reckless behaviour driven by self-interest. It has a deep hatred of any nation, group or person at odds with your ideology. And it has aided, trained and harbored union busting thugs, including operatives of Patricks in the MUA dispute.

The danger is clear: a prolonged use of your government puts Australians at risk and could kill the faith millions of our people have in democracy. The people of Australia did nothing to deserve this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward regime change and reform. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed at the ballot box.

The people of Australia has the sovereign authority to use its electoral force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to us, the citizens, by the oath we have sworn, to uphold the principles of democracy and good government. This is an oath we will keep in spades John.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the people of Australia will vote overwhelmingly next election to force you and your coalition from government. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Your government has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. In recent days, some members of your party have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging you to change your ways, so that Australia can start to get itself out of the mess you have put us in. You have thus far refused. All the years of deceit and disingenuous have now reached an end.

You and your coalition must call an election within 48 days. Your refusal to do so will result in your political destruction, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all your political cronies should vacate the bureaucracy immediately.

Many Liberal and National party members can hear me tonight and I have a message for them. If we must begin a political campaign, it will be directed against the spineless men who rule your coalition and not against you. As us citizens take away their power, we will deliver the good government you need. We will tear down the apparatus of political patronage and we will help you to build a new Australia that is prosperous and fair.

In a fair Australia, there will be no more fear of your neighbors, no more detention centres, no persecution of unions or marginalised groups, no more contrived events for political propaganda. The little schoolboy tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for you to remain in power. But it is not too late for the coalition to act with honor and protect their government by demanding the peaceful resignation of your Prime Minister. We urge every member of the coalition, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own political life.

And all the political appointees in the public service should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy, siphon off or privatise any public assets, like Michael Wooldridge did, a source of wealth that belongs to the Australian people. Do not obey any command to use lies and deception against the Australian people. Political crimes will be prosecuted. Political criminals will be punished unmercilessly at the ballot box. And it will be no defense to say, “I was just following the John’s orders.”

John, should you choose blind obstinacy and ignore our protests, you can be assured that every measure will be taken by the Australian people to remove you. Australians understand the costs of having gutless and dishonest leaders such as you because we have paid for them in the past.

If you attempt to cling to power, we know you will become desperate and engage in more deceptive and harmful behaviour that puts Australia at risk. The terrorist threat to Australia will be diminished the moment that you and your Liberals are removed from power.

We are a laid back people – yet we’re not a dumb people, and we will not be fooled by a political charlatan such as yourself. We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of you and your government to inflict harm on all of us would be multiplied many times over. We choose to meet that threat now, making it known that we are consigning you and your flunkeys to electoral oblivion.

The security of Australia requires the dismissal of the your Government at the earliest opportunity.

Unlike you John Howard, we believe the Australian people are deserving of a safe and prosperous future with accountable and honest government.

That is the future we choose. Citizens have a duty to defend our country by uniting against the dishonest that act against our interests for the sake of their own. And soon, as we have done before, Australia and its people will accept that responsibility.

Good night John, and may God save the Liberal Party because the rest of us we will be waiting for you and your pathetic party with a block of four-by-two at the next election.

Yours Sincerely,

John Citizen, somewhere in a marginal seat

***

THE LEGALITY OF THE WAR

Norm Wotherspoon

Margo, I have no legal knowledge or experience, and am seeking an answer to a question of some concern to myself and others:

When Australia sends troops into Iraq as part of the ‘pre-emptive strike’ phase of the war on Iraq, then:

a) Under the legal terms/definitions/conventions of war, would it be an invasion, from the Iraqi viewpoint (which I as a layperson believe it would be), and, if so,

b) under those same legal terms/definitions/conventions, would that therefore mean that any attacks within Australia in reprisal would be simply reciprocal acts of war, (and more justifiable through being a response to attack), and could not be really labelled as ‘terrorist attacks’?

Can any of your readers please enlighten me?

***

Jacob A. Stam

On The 7.30 Report last night, Kerry O’Brien interviewed Prime Minister John Howard on his decision yesterday to commit to war on Iraq. O’Brien questioned the international legitimacy of this war, observing that whereas “the allied coalition against Iraq in 91 … numbered 34 countries … The coalition of the willing this time has shrunk to three”. (abc)

The PM responded that “more than twenty countries are making a contribution”, but conceded that “To my knowledge, there are three making a direct military contribution”. He added, “There could be more, I dont know…” It’s alarming that the man whose decision it has been to embark on this military adventure doesn’t even know exactly who our servicemen and women will be fighting alongside.

When the Prime Minister discussed his government’s legal advice that legality of the war issues from UNSC Resolution 1441, O’Brien pointed out that Britain and America co-sponsored Resolution 1441, and America said at the time that it voted for that resolution: “This resolution contains no hidden triggers and no automaticity with respect to the use of force”. The British said exactly the same thing, both promised to come back to the UN for further discussion before any action.

The PM seemed rattled for a moment, but bounced back with his government’s legal advice that “the failure of Iraq to fully disarm reactivates the authority to use force contained in the earlier Resolutions of 678 and 687”, and that “is really the essence of the argument”.

As commentators in the press have observed today, Resolution 678 in fact provides for the use of collective force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Resolution 687 sets out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, outlining Iraq’s requirement to destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and the final paragraph of resolution 687 gives the Security Council the power to decide “such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area”, implying further Security Council consideration will be needed(theage).

Other commentators have observed:

The key to the Government’s legal view is that Iraqs actions have somehow negated the basis of the 1991 ceasefire as expressed in Resolution 687. It has been argued the ceasefire declared by Resolution 687 was conditional on Iraq fulfilling the conditions required of it. However, the resolution makes clear the ceasefire will come into effect if Iraq simply accepts the terms of the resolution.

The resolution states that it is then up to the Security Council to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the resolution. No state or coalition of states acting outside the authorisation of the council retains the right to use force, even to punish Iraq for breaches of the resolution or to compel its compliance.

Hence, a further resolution of the Security Council is required… (smh)

That’s where Resolution 1441 enters the equation, but the Prime Minister did not even attempt to respond O’Briens reference to “no hidden triggers and no automaticity with respect to the use of force”. Presumably, the PM knew this was a fruitless direction to take, and so diverted the discussion to Resolutions 678 and 687 (which I suspect O’Brien was ill prepared to discuss).

Greg Hunt (Peter Reith’s successor in the seat of Flinders) argued the legal case for his government in The Age today at theage, saying, “Critically, resolution 1441 declares Iraq “in material breach” of its obligations, offers “one final opportunity” to comply fully not partially and threatens “serious consequences” if it continued to violate its obligations”.

A reasonable distillation, but he then adds: “The term serious consequences is the same enforcement provision that underpinned Desert Storm.” This is incorrect, because Resolution 678 specified forced expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and gave a specific deadline for Iraq’s compliance. Aside from defending a flawed legal argument, much of Hunt’s argument for the legality of the war belabours the subsidiary arguments for war with which were all by now quite familiar, but which are frankly irrelevant to this point of law.

 

Last call cafe. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

He paused. His eyes hardened. He leant forward. His arm lifted, his forefinger wagged. “WE will determine the foreign policy of this country. We WON’T have it determined for us by the United States of America.”

Simon Crean in Parliament today, in the most important speech of his life – the speech which laid out the battlefield of the terrible division this country now faces – played John Howard on October 28, 2001 at the Liberal Party campaign launch.

John Howard paused. His eyes hardened. His arm lifted, his forefinger wagged. “WE will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come.” That line became his election slogan. The crowd exploded, their feet pounded the floor, their cheers deafened the ears of those who sat frozen, appalled.

John Howard carried the majority of the Australian people with him as he thumbed his nose at international norms in handling refugees, as he turned their boats back and excised parts of Australia to avoid our legal obligations to him.

Fortress Australia. Australians loved it.

Now, the same John Howard has dismantled his fortress Australia, with unswerving, overt, unquestioning acquiescence to the United States wish that we help it invade Iraq, and it is he who has defied public opinion to do so. He is charged by Simon Crean, now speaking the people’s mind, handing over our sovereignty to a foreign power in reckless disregard of our national interests. Of committing our troops to a war which will increase the threat of terrorist attack on our nation, make us a target in a suspicious region, and take us outside the protection of a United Nations we helped found to look after us in a dangerous world.

“The Prime Minister today, in a reckless and unnecessary action, has committed Australia to war. We saw capitulation and subservience to a phone call from the United States. This is a black day for Australia,” Crean charged. The threesome – America, Britain and Spain – met in the Azores to decide to go to war, and “one of these countries, Spain, is prepared to commit our troops to war, but not their own”.

“These are the tragic circumstances in which the Prime Minister has placed us…you have turned your back on the Australian people”.

All of a sudden, Crean had the ‘gaul’ to call his team “a Labor government in waiting”, an alternative, he said, which “WILL be prepared to act in Australia’s national interests”. John Howard could have said that, and probably did, during the Tampa debate.

All the dynamics which made John Howard a hero after Tampa now threaten to destroy him as he destroyed Kim Beazley, and to save Simon Crean. Except that just as Howard was prepared to tear up international rules to get his way on Tampa, he is prepared to do the same to get his war on Iraq. But this time, Fortress Australia wants the security of UN endorsement, and fears not the UN, but the influence on him of the most powerful nation in the world.

This vicious debate, to be conducted in an Australia consumed with anxiety, fear and confusion, will split families and destroy friendships. Our troops know some of them will die in a war most of their fellow citizens do not endorse and which some of them believe will threaten our national security. For the first time in Australian history, a Prime Minister has committed us to a war Australians do not want, and that public opinion around the world opposes.

John Howard once charged Labor with subverting our national interest to United Nations refugee do gooders. Now he is charged with outsourcing the most crucial power of any Prime Minister, the power to declare war in the national interest, to a foreign power. America could not get its neighbour Mexico to vote for war on the Security Council, or its neighbour Canada to predeploy troops in advance of UN authority. But it could get Australia, a nation with clean hands in the Middle-East, a nation whose neighbour is the most populous Muslim nation in the world, a nation with its hands full protecting East Timor with UN authority, to follow wherever it led.

In the process, John Howard has destroyed the cohesion of the constituency he built post Tampa to remain in power. He has given Simon Crean the chance to bring back the constituency Labor threw away to protect itself from the power of Howard’s Tampa policy, to take back Howard converts, and to eat into those in Howard’s traditional Liberal constituency opposed to Australia’s participation in its first war of aggression without UN approval or neutrality.

The war on Iraq has yet to begin. Australia’s war – for its identity, it’s place in the world, and the values by which it engages with its citizens and the world – has just begun its final, brutal phase.

Yesterday, at the beginning of a week when John Howard admitted Australia could invade Iraq without UN approval, he said this: “It’s very important as we start the week off that people understand that there is adequate legal authority under existing Security Council resolutions for action to be taken without the need for a further resolution.”

Today, he refused point blank to release the legal advice he said proved his claim.

John Howard’s contempt for the Australian people, it seems, has no bounds. His disdain for the morale of our troops, now allowing the fear of illegality to add to their burden of fighting a war knowing most Australians do not want them to risk their lives for this cause, verges on the unbelievable.

As Keir Starmer QC, a British barrister specialising in international human rights law, wrote in today’s Guardian newspaper on the eve of the release of the British Government’s legal advice:

“(British troops), their families and the public have a right to know what the “proper legal basis” for their action is. Engaging in armed conflict in breach of international law is a precarious business. The idea that the prime minister would end up before the international criminal court for participating in a US-led attack is far-fetched. But military commanders on the ground will not thank the government if any action they take is later judged to have been in breach of international law.”

Just last month, forty three of Australia’s most senior international law experts signed a letter declaring that “the initiation of a war against Iraq by the self-styled “coalition of the willing” would be a fundamental violation of international law” which could “involve committing both war crimes and crimes against humanity”. They warned that Australian military personnel and government officials faced the threat of being hauled before the International Criminal Court if they took part.

Sydney’s top barrister, Bret Walker SC, challenged the government to release contrary advice, if it had any. His challenge went unanswered.

Mr Howard said today he had “formal legal advice”, from “the Attorney General’s department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade”, but would not release it. He did not say why.

When told that the British government planned to release advice from Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, he said: “I don’t know what the UK will do, and we do what we normally do in relation to these things.”

Here’s what the government normally does in relation to legal advice on politically contentious matters. If the advice suits its argument it releases it, either in full or by showing reporters parts of the text. If the advice does not suit its case, it refuses to do so.

In 1997, the overwhelming majority of Australia’s top lawyers – in private practice and at the Australian Law Reform Commission – advised that its original Wik bill was racially discriminatory and in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The Government repeated, over and over – including in the Parliament – that its legal advice was that the Wik bill did not breach the Act and was not racially discriminatory. One minister, Nick Minchin, even told Parliament that it was difficult to understand how anyone could believe the contrary claim.

The government refused all requests to release that advice and ordered the Australian Law Reform Commission not to give evidence on the matter to a parliamentary inquiry into the Wik bill, triggering an inquiry into whether Attorney-General Daryl Williams was in contempt of the Senate.

Finally, in November 1997, an extract of the Government’s legal advice – by its Chief General Counsel Henry Burmester – was leaked to the Herald. It warned that the Wik bill could run foul of the Racial Discrimination Act on at least three grounds, and could also breach a key international human rights agreement, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination.

This government has form. This is a matter of the highest importance to the Australian people and to our troops in the Gulf. It is Mr Howard’s duty to prove his case.

John Howard has lost it. At his press conference today, he cut off war questions, turned his back and walked away. Then someone said “Steve Waugh”. Howard bounced back to the presidential lectern, grinned widely, showing his teeth for what seemed like an eternity, and settled in for a rave about the great man. Australia is about to go to war, for God’s sake.

John Howard’s government has been lying to the Australian people about his intentions for so long now that even its most senior ministers are fluffing their lines. In an interview yesterday, Peter Costello refused to speculate about the leadership because “We have a war on”.

Today, Howard was asked: “Can you see any circumstances where you would say no to a request from President Bush?”

“Well if I thought that you had the fifteen of them all saying the sort of thing that I was talking about I think that would offer some hope. But I don’t think there’s much hope of that,” he replied.

In other words, he wouldn’t go to war if the security council had agreed to endorse a strike and Saddam had backed down. This means that he had already decided to say yes to an unauthorised US strike if asked by Bush. All his “hypothetical” talk was just evasion, with the consequence that he has refused to take the Australian people into his confidence and tell them why, in his judgement, it would be in Australia’s interests to walk away from the UN and invade another country without UN endorsement. Perhaps he never will.

And the result of his deception? The Prime Minister has not addressed the Australian people’s core concerns about the war.

Question: “A lot of the community support has been based on the idea of whether or not there would be UN backing. Now that UN backing is looking extremely slim what do you say to the Australian people who are probably the majority opposed to this at the moment?”

“Well I don’t think you really know ultimately what public opinion is on this until the final shape of the final decision is known, and there’s some working out of that,” Howard replied. “What I generally say in response to that is that there’s plenty of legal authority on the basis of existing United Nations’ resolutions and any decision we take will be based on the legal authority that’s contained there, amongst other things …”

The legality is not, of course, the only concern. Without UN sanction, Australia stands out like a sore thumb, in the world and most particularly in our region, thereby increasing the risk of an attack on our soil and on our citizens. Without UN sanction, we effectively turn our backs on the body we helped found after World War 11 to help stop World War 111. Where is John Howard leading us, and why? He won’t say.

Some people are so angry at the sheer contempt their leader has shown them that they’re emailing the Governor-General to demand he veto Howard’s war. This is ridiculous. Australians bear the responsibility for electing this man, and this Parliament.

As you know, I’ve always supported Australian involvement in a UN sponsored invasion because of the importance of our alliance with the United States. Without such sanction, the risks – especially given the region we live in – are too great.

I’ve written many times in Webdiary that the decision to go to war is a special case. I do not believe in populism – that governments should invariably, or even mostly, do what popular opinion wants at a given point in time.

But war is blood sacrifice of Australian citizens on behalf of the Australian people. Not on behalf of the Prime Minister – in a democracy, at least – on behalf of the people. John Howard’s very legitimacy is now in question. Last week, he could not think of one credible non-political figure who supported his cause. Yesterday, he dared to claim that the reason he’d not told us he would go to war when George Bush gave the nod, even without UN sanction, was to help the people decide what they thought!

“The only reason I’ve held back and said the final decisions not been taken is I’ve wanted to give the Government and the nation room to make that decision in full possession of all of the relevant facts and circumstances,” he said. This is crazy talk.

And how can he tell what the nation thinks since he doesn’t believe the polls and claims people wouldn’t really make up their minds until he’s told them what he’s already decided? “I don’t think you really know ultimately what public opinion is on this until the final shape of the final decision is known,” he said today.

The Australian people have known for a long time what you’d decided, Mr Howard. (See, for example, Don’t believe the hype, way back in September last year). They just didn’t know why. And still don’t.

I believe Labor should seriously consider demanding an immediate election, and refuse to pass any legislation unless John Howard submits himself to the Australian people. Enough is enough.

***

People power played a part in John Howard’s press conference today. Scott Burchill emailed me today’s Guardian story stating that Britain would release its legal advice on the legality of a non-UN sanctioned war, I briefed our Canberra legal correspondent Cynthia Banham, and she got the question up after Howard said he’d keep his legal advice secret. Howard seemed unbriefed and fobbed it off, but the question raised media interest in Howard’s secrecy ploy. Thanks again, Scott.

For my comment piece on Howard’s secrecy, see It’s legal, believe me. The Guardian article is at Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force. The Howard transcript is at pm.)

***

Scott recommends today’s The New York Times for a detailed analysis of what went wrong in the UN, called ‘A Long, Winding Road to a Diplomatic Dead End’. You have to sign on before you can read it.

***

Polly Bush thinks she’s found a Liberal who at least might be toying with dissent, the marvellous Judi Moylan from Western Australia, who had the guts to abstain on the Tampa border protection legislation, and who led the campaign, partly through Webdiary, to pressure Peter Costello to turn down Shell’s bid for Woodside.

Liberal MP Judi Moylan ultimately supported the government’s position, but spent most of her speech detailing the horrible impact of it. “An invasion of Iraq would involve the death of many innocent men, women and children. We hear the use of the term ‘collateral damage’, which seems to have its origins in the United States. It is a convenient euphemism. But we are under no illusions: it simply means that those unlucky enough to be in the way, innocently in some cases, will not escape death and injury. Everything possible must be done to avoid such a conflict,” she said.” (The Age September 9, 2002)

***

Over to you, for more final thoughts before the war.

Venkata Sreegiriraju

I will provide you with a recent set of events to show that America, Britain and Australia need not feel humiliated if they withdraw forces from Gulf.

India had more reason to attack Pakistan, because of support of terrorist activities in Pakistan against India, cross border terrorism emanating from Pakistan, and a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. It even stationed over 500,000 military personnel along the Pakistan border.

But it did not attack Pakistan because it listened to the world and put faith in diplomacy. Now it even withdrew some of its forces. According to American logic India should feel humiliated because it thereby lost its bargaining power. If the American administration says it has the right to pre-emptive attack, what right it has to ask India not to make a pre-emptive attack?

I recommend The Arrogant Empire.

***

Welcome to Freedom! (Sorry about the bombs)

by David Makinson

Well, it seems the dreaded moment is upon us. Australia is on the very cusp of its first ever war of aggression. John Howard’s legacy – his place in history.

The government lies to us every day and ignores the will of its people. Now our mostly proud and peace-loving history is about to be stained as we attack for no reason a nation which has never threatened us in the past, is not threatening us today, and is unlikely to ever threaten us in the future.

It all seems hopeless, and the natural response of those of us who have railed against this wrong might be to concede defeat and shuffle disconsolately away.

Don’t do it. Don’t even think about it. SHOUT LOUDER.

If we can’t stop the war, we can end it faster. If we can’t stop the war, we can change its outcomes. We can force the aggressors to take responsibility for their actions and rebuild the destroyed country of Iraq. We have already brought this aspect to the forefront. Going quiet now would be a betrayal of what we’ve tried to say. And it would be a betrayal of the people of Iraq.

Which brings me to the main theme of this piece. It’s the thorniest issue of all. The argument is that the people of Iraq actually want us to go to war in order to liberate them from the oppressor. As I’ve mentioned previously, this aspect did not start to get significant air time in the mainstream case for war until quite recently. Now, more and more of the right-wing pro-war lobbyists are latching on to it. Witness John Howard’s very recent epiphany. (Margo: And witness the extraordinary memo from the summit of three at smh – WMDs hardly rate a mention!)

The hawks know that, amongst all the obvious rank lies and clumsy deceptions of the other so-called causes for war, this one has bite. It is the most confronting for their opponents. We are a motley bunch of bleeding hearts, after all. Would anti-war people like to see an end of the Iraqi regime? Of course. Well then, war must surely be the only answer? No. The end does not always justify the means.

In an awful parody of Patrick Henry’s famous cry, we are saying to the Iraqis that we will “give you Liberty or give you Death!” What obscene arrogance.

Of course we on the anti-war side would like to make oppressed people free. But to do this over their dead bodies is an abomination. Imagine burying your newly-free child. How do you feel? Liberated?

There are a hell of a lot of regimes around the world which perpetrate hideous crimes on a daily basis. Who gets to decide which ones we attack, and when? This way lies madness – a world of chaos, where the rule of international law is replaced by the rule of selective war. And, entirely contrary to what John Howard says, the only message to those other regimes is – you guessed it – “arm up quick, for then they will be afraid to attack us”. North Korea seems to understand this very well.

The whole issue of the oppressed peoples across the world is an aspect that must not be left to the increasingly questionable devices of the governments of America and its vassal states.

If we are (now) serious about rescuing the citizens of oppressed regimes, then let’s make a serious assessment of the ways of doing this. Let this not be a flag of convenience used only to support war on Iraq. Let’s look at Iraq, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea and all the others and work out the right way forward.

At the moment we have carefully and cynically selected just one country for our righteous moralising, a country where these abuses have been going on for decades with our tacit approval. And we have gone straight to what should be the option of very last resort – bloody war. We have not even evaluated, let alone tried any alternative solutions.

Look past Saddam, people. Stop to think where you’re heading.

It has been asserted by some of those in the pro-war lobby that “most Iraqis” have, in some form of “collective decision” determined that they are prepared to suffer a war if it means the regime is removed. The problem with this is that the assertion is made without proof, and is in fact incapable of being proved. It is no more than a guess. “Some Iraqis want the war” would be an honest thing to say, but that does not suit their line, so they lie by exaggeration. Old trick. Very transparent.

This sanctimonious “We know what’s good for you” attitude is both chilling and sickening. Even worse than the expedient cynics on the right, these are ideological monsters who see killing for their cause as good. Their diamond hard benevolence is cold-eyed, unblinking, and absolutely pitiless.

So pitiless that they can selectively ignore “Shock and Awe”. So cold that they can choose not to think about MOABs and cluster bombs. They choose not to think about depleted uranium and cruise missiles. They choose in their smug, reptilian complacency not to think about the carbonised bodies of the Iraqi dead. And they choose not to remember that over half the population of Iraq are children under the age of 15. So completely obsessed by Saddam, they cannot see the children.

And then they have the gall to accuse us of selectively forgetting the people of Iraq. Their hypocrisy is absolute.

Or perhaps it’s just that they don’t believe Shock and Awe will happen. Perhaps they’ve elected not to believe in MOABs and cluster bombs. Or perhaps they have decided to believe the Americans won’t use them. Perhaps they’re choosing to forget the innocent dead of all of the world’s other wars.

Perhaps they don’t even choose to agree that war should be the last resort. Certainly the propaganda coming out of America is confusing enough – one moment they’re launching up to 3000 missiles in 48 hours, the next they’re carefully targeting only military installations. Whatever – rest assured that by the time the war is done, we will have been party to the murder of a large number of people who need not otherwise have died.

This is not a question of “if”. It is a question of “how many”.

“The Iraqis want the war”. Utter codswallop. How dare these people assume the right to ignore the opinions of all the Iraqis who don’t want a bar of this bloody war? How dare they presume to speak about the desires and fears of 23 million people? Challenge the assertion yourselves: Listen to the radio interviews with Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad. Read the international press. Conduct an internet search. You will very quickly discover exactly what you would expect to discover: Iraqi voices that run the full gamut of opinion. From pro-war, through profound ambivalence, to anti-war. Exactly as you would expect.

The people of Iraq are as divided on this as the rest of us. And they have so much more at stake. I wonder if all those kids under the age of 15 were part of this imaginary “collective decision”?

No decision has been made by the people of Iraq, nor can it be. In the end, we cannot possibly know what the collective will of the people of Iraq is, so as a cause for war, this one fails abjectly. To present this as an established truth is, purely and simply, arrant nonsense. And that’s putting it kindly.

If you see or hear anyone trying to make this argument, hang up the phone, point and click elsewhere, slam the door in their faces. Punch them in the nose. Shout LIAR! LIAR! PANTS ON FIRE! very loudly. Laugh at them. Do what you have to do, but don’t let them get away with this pathetic fraud.

***

Martin Walsh

If any military enforcement of UN resolutions is illegal without UN sanction then why hasn’t the US, UK or allies been prosecuted for using military force in Bosnia and Afghanistan after the UN could not get consensus on any action? I think many of the issues you raise in your Webdiary are irrelevant. I haven’t seen too many discussions about the facts of what the Iraqi regime has done or the facts of the failings of the UN in Rwanda or Bosnia or the self-interest and back room deals between Iraq and Russia, Germany and especially France.

Thank god we have access to US, UK and European media who seem to have a broader, more informative and more balanced approach to reporting, analysis and opinion journalism.

Since Friday I have asked about 22 people from many different backgrounds at work, at the sporting ground, and at the pub, and the majority agree with my view and I think I represent the majority of silent Australian’s supporting this action. Because, sorry to disappoint you, we are intelligent enough to see through propaganda and spin and irrelevant issues and see that this action is the right thing to do at this point in time and fully understand that sitting around on the lounge hoping and wishing the world will be a better place is simply naive.

***

Sandy Thomas

When it comes to “believing” John Howard, am I the only one to wonder about the uncanny parallels?

Winston, at home in the talkback studios on Friday, doublespeaks that the French are using “spoiling tactics to prevent peaceful disarmament” – because they’ll vote against a UN resolution “authorising” Bush, Blair and himself to start their war whenever they like.

The Iraqis are now “right” to flee a tyrannical regime – but the Ministry of Truth is still free, at least metaphorically, to continue to throw these refugees overboard, because we have “a right to defend our borders”.

And the only future Winston’s “logic” can offer, after Iraq, is an endless parade of yet more wars against yet more countries, ostensibly because he “fears” they might aid terrorists, whenever the White House changes their status from “with us” to “rogue state”.

George Orwell never dreamt how literally the plodding would grasp at his satire and translate it into a grim, highly “spun” reality.

On a not entirely unrelated note, you might like to grab a look at Robert Fisk’s latest, and especially his “weasel words to watch for”, at independent

***

David Svenson in Brisbane

I’ve neglected reading your Web Diary for some time because it is corrupted by so many subjective thinkers and not enough sensible people like Chris Andrews (Do you believe John Howard?)

As an old footslogger, I agree with John Howard. I have seen enough of it to abhor war and I watched the gutless Americans allow that other murdering tyrant Hitler bluff all the gutless French and British politicians until the pathetic Chamberlain was forced to act (and admit Churchill was right!) Now the pathetic peaceniks want us to repeat the errors of the past and cuddle an even worse tyrant than Hitler.

Margo I don’t like John Howard any more than you do. Nevertheless I must admire the PM’s political skills and his impressive Press Club speech, particularly the way he demolished his detractors in answering their mostly factually baseless questions.

***

Stewart Harrison

Your column ‘Do you believe John Howard?’ highlights what a dangerous legacy he is leaving to Australia. By his cavalier actions he has placed this country in a position of extreme danger for many years to come.

Has he lied? His track record on so many vitally important issues to this country speaks for itself. However, on this occasion, he will cause the death of so many innocent people in this country. Terrorists will target Australia or its interests and whilst the quality of our defenders match any in the world there will never be enough to effectively protect us.

The misguided and zealous actions of one man has changed Australia forever and we have gained nothing.

He will do it because what masquerades for an opposition still wears its union shirts and fails to be credible to the electorate. Here is a golden opportunity to have a dangerous, backward thinking person brought to heel. In an environment where most Australians are totally opposed to his actions and don’t believe his utterances on a large raft of other crucial matters, Labor plays around the edges. The only one to have any credible presence is their Kevin Rudd. There is the next Prime Minister.

What does Howard hope to gain…a trade agreement? At what price? Why does Howard not listen to the Australian people that is purports to represent? This is not our fight when most of the world won’t endorse such a war. So much for his family values. One dictator trying to squash another.

***

Peter Funnell in Canberra

Every indication now that war will commence (officially) in a day or two. I thought they might have started over the weekend, but it seems they are determined to try and face down the French at the Security Council before they give the go signal.

As I write I can hear the news saying our PM will hold a Cabinet meeting tonight, presumably to confirm what he has always intended to say to the Australian people. But of course, there has been no “formal” request. What is “formal” in these circumstances I wonder? A phone call – “John, it’s George here pal, were going in on Wednesday”. A letter? An email or a fax? Talk about real crap – of course the whole damn thing has been “formal”, because our PM has made up his mind, he has a “belief”. I am at a loss to find the words to express my utter amazement and disappointment.

***

Graeme Merrall

Howard may be trotting out his 1991 UN Resolution excuse at the moment but he appears to have forgotten a 1950 General Assembly resolution allows the General Assembly to step in to “maintain or restore international peace and security” in the event that “the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”. How intriguing. See un and look for “Uniting for peace”.

***

Jacob A. Stam in Narre Warren, Victoria

The Howard Government’s media cheer-squad (Henderson, Devine, et al.) have recently been crowing about a “pathological hatred” of the government which, they say, is particularly manifest in criticism of its policy on Iraq. Speaking for myself, I would rather characterise my attitude as one of disdain, a visceral sense of queasiness and distaste at the muck we the Australian public are intended to swallow.

All the same, it is true to say that there is a great deal of animus abroad against the Howard Government. It is also true that the aversion felt by broad sections of the community is literally pathological. We might even take a stab at broadly delineating said pathology:

* The regressive GST which was “never, ever” going to be on this Government’s agenda,

* Surreptitious collusion with sectional interests in industrial disputes, notably the Patrick wharves dispute,

* Shaming of Australia over the Kyoto Protocol (at the behest of Australian captains of commerce, who have since done an about face with an eye on possibly lucrative carbon credits trading),

* Backhanded support for the former Northern Territory government’s mandatory sentencing laws on the grounds of states/territories rights, while overturning their right-to-die law on moral grounds,

* Failure to act upon prior knowledge of the impending bloodbath following the East Timorese independence vote,

* Deploying peacekeeping forces to East Timor following an earnest effort at sitting on its hands, only after thousands of ordinary Australians expressed their anger,

* Mandatory detention of asylum seekers fleeing the very Iraqi regime that the Prime Minister admits is a torturer of children,

* Soft handling of the odious Burmese regime which is also a torturer of children (e.g., sending human rights lecturers while demurring on UN/ILO prescribed economic sanctions),

* The Prime Minister’s tricky apologetics for Suharto’s Indonesia, eg “not a democracy in the sense that we understand it”, with Suharto then in power,

* This Government’s fearless denunciation of Suharto’s Indonesia as a “dictatorship”, with Suharto then safely deposed and in disgrace,

* Shaming of Australia over the Tampa incident,

* The mean, tricky and expensive “Pacific solution”,

* Excision of sovereign territory from the Australian “migration zone” (a kind of Wonderland croquet we play with our humanitarian obligations),

* The “children overboard” tricky-fiction which this Government ran with as a rancid morsel to a starving man,

* The Prime Minister’s defence of his talkback demagoguery as statesmanlike articulation of Australian values, while denouncing as “the mob” everyone from peace protesters to critics of his Governor-General,

* Selective application of the “mandate theory of politics”, which this Prime Minister once described as “absolutely phoney”,

* Proposed abolition of media ownership rules, and

* Persistent undermining of Medicare.

No doubt this list is not exhaustive. But overarching all this is the Government’s general and overwhelmingly reflexive kow-towing to US geopolitical objectives (to put it much more politely than, say, Mark Latham).

The Prime Minister and his apologists ascribe his position on Iraq to “conviction politics”, and we are expected to swallow this without gagging as 40 US trade officials arrive in the country to negotiate a possible free trade agreement. Yes, the prospective FTA has been suddenly refloated, after last year foundering in the face of apparently insurmountable opposition from the US farm lobby.

It remains to be seen, after the war we had to have has run its course, whether the US agricultural sector will relent to the “slight squeeze” on its interests that US Ambassador Schieffer this weekend said they might. It also remains to be seen how “slight” a squeeze they will concede. As Australians, we might ponder whether the resurrected prospect of the FTA explains the Australian agricultural sector’s muted response to Howard’s warmongering, with millions of dollars in grain exports to Iraq in the balance.

***

Neil Baird in Williamstown, Victoria

A Portrait of a Sad Man

I observed John Howard’s Press Club Speech broadcast on ABC television Thursday 13th of March. As one of Howard’s former colleagues John Valder, once Liberal Party President commented, it was a very professional speech but that was about it.

From my point of view, Howards speech was not convincing or compelling. I saw a man who is blinded by his own distorted logic trying to convince people who have heard enough already to make up their minds that this war with Iraq is not on, that this is wrong and dangerous and reckless and stupid. The audience of journalists appeared to me to be just going through the motions – knowing the questions they would ask would not be answered.

In these last days before calamity strikes Howard needs to deal with the demons in his own mind,with his internal terrorism – that there is no way out of this uncontrollable mess, that a back down would be catastrophic blow to the ego, his paternalistic leadership and be altogether incomprehensible. Even though the human cost of lives is going to be immense.

During his speech, Howard’s attempts at humour – the cricket connection whilst phoning General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan (hey, it’s not cricket with a baseball bat is it?) and the Darlinghurst law courts ‘forgive my past Sydney links, old bailey proof’ fell flat. How does he expect an audience to warm to the prospect of war that appears in the hearts and minds of many people to be completely unjustified.

Howard showed he is yesterday’s man caught up in an extraordinarily messy business with world forces completely beyond his illusions of control. A small player seduced by the world’s power brokers and now trying to cling on desperately.

As Howard was describing his attempt to influence Pakistan’s vote at the UNSC through telephone diplomacy with the mutual love of cricket between Musharraf and himself, what was going through my mind wasn’t cricket but, “Isn’t that where they arrested the number two man for al-Qaeda in Pakistan?”

At least Blair has the courage and guts to debate the ordinary citizen. Not Howard though – he hides behind his mean and tricky logic, hoping that braying on and on will brainwash us all into submission.

We have a Prime Minister who has sold the Australian people out over his subservience to the American alliance – particularly with Iraq – whilst trying to save his skin and the realisation of his own ultimate nightmare: the opprobrium of the Bush administration.

***

Meeja Watch

by Jack Robertson

There is some irony in Damian Joyce recommending “Lunch with the Chairman’ in the same Webdiary entry that Peter Woodforde exhorts us to remember the courage of some American soldiers in protecting victims of the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam (‘Do you believe John Howard?’)

Part of what redeemed the US after that episode – and part of what still makes America a vibrant symbol of freedom in the world – was the public exposure of that terrible outbreak of military madness in the heat of confused, bitter combat operations, and the intensely-honest US self-criticism that (eventually) followed such mistakes during Vietnam. The core professional coalition forces are perhaps more disciplined and better-trained, perhaps better able these days to avoid another My Lai.

On the other hand, there is an enormous number of combat-inexperienced Reservists in the main US fighting forces. Also, the risks of this sort of ‘combat madness’ occurring during and/or after the invasion of Iraq are surely unusually high, since the invasion aims remain at best muddled, the invading forces are now highly-charged by the delays and uncertainty, the combatant-delineating Rules of Engagement are still unclear, the response of the local populations is unpredictable, and the Iraqi internal political and ethnic dispositions are conflicting and unstable.

Independent, open journalism will be absolutely crucial in helping friendly forces maintain perspective and keep a check on their own combat conduct over the next months, especially when the various post-Saddam scenarios begin to play themselves out.

Public opinion, support for the soldiers and the overall ‘justness’ of this invasion – what little can now be salvaged, anyway – will be best served by many feisty, independent reporters being permitted, by the military hierarchy, to watch events closely, constantly and sceptically.

Reporters just like the reporter who was responsible for exposing the My Lai Massacre – Seymour Hersch, who won a Pulitzer for it. Reporters just like the reporter who wrote ‘Lunch with the Chairman’ about Richard Perle’s dealings with Khashoggi and Co – also Seymour Hersch. Read more about him here – bostonphoenix.

Now that we are committed to this invasion and occupation, only such independent scrutiny can prevent America’s military-coalition juggernaut from lurching fully into ugly, totalitarian territory.

And yet here is an exchange, on CNN’s ‘Late Edition’ on March 9 (the day Hersch’s story was published in the New Yorker) between Perle and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Even though Perle obviously doesn’t speak for the whole ‘pro-invasion’ camp, he has been a major driving force behind the Bush Administration’s adoption of this path. Here is how he responded to Hersch’s latest piece of awkward investigative journalism (my bold):

WOLF BLITZER: …Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. “There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war.”

PERLE: I don’t believe that a company would gain from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I’ve said this over and over again, will diminish the threat of terrorism. And what he’s talking about is investments in homeland defense, which I think are vital and are necessary. Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.

BLITZER: Well, on the basis of – why do you say that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he’s widely irresponsible. If you read the article, it’s first of all, impossible to find any consistent theme in it. But the suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don’t understand. Why do you accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever distortion he can – look, he hasn’t written a serious piece since My Lai.

BLITZER: All right. We’re going to leave it right there.

So there we have it: an admirably open deployment of one of the pro-invasion camp’s less admirable tactics. Pass the word about, Margo: if any pesky journalist should get a little too awkward at this delicate stage of the Bushies’ Manifest Destiny vision for the Persian Gulf, then the way the Chairman of the highly-influential Defence Policy Board sees things, you’re not merely a ‘terrorist-lover’, or a ‘Western self-blamer’, you are a terrorist yourself.

This does not bode well for any investigative reporters who try to present to us the truth – as opposed to an officially-airbrushed version – about how the fighting in Iraq proceeds. We will see, I suppose. Or not, more likely.

***

Kerryn Higgs in New York

I agree that George bush’s rose garden move last weekend is very possibly intended, in part at least, to allay suspicion that Bush is “captive to a Zionist cabal”. (Do you believe John Howard?)

At the same time, seems to me he’s having two bob each way. It it is not clear that he is offering the same “roadmap” put together in September by the “Quartet” of the US, UN, EU and Russia, a plan which was put on hold for six months at US instigation while the Israeli election – and then the formation of the new government – took place.

I refer you to James Bennet’s article in the New York Times on Saturday March 15 (nyt),which casts specific doubts on Bush’s good faith:

In announcing today that he was prepared to move ahead with a “road map” to peace and a Palestinian state, President Bush appeared to diverge sharply from the allies who helped him draft the map over what, precisely, it represents.

Mr. Bush pleased Israelis and dismayed Palestinians by describing the draft proposal as open to amendment, saying, “We will expect and welcome contributions from Israel and the Palestinians to this document that will advance true peace.”

The three other members of the diplomatic quartet that drew up the plan – the United Nations, the European Union and Russia – regard it as fixed, demanding immediate concessions from both sides, according to diplomats involved in the process. Israel has criticized it as potentially threatening to its security and has sought many changes.

Even as he made his announcement, Mr. Bush altered the document. He said he would present it as soon as the Palestinians confirmed a prime minister with “real authority.”

Mr. Bush’s intention may be to box in Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, and force him to install a powerful prime minister. But according to the plan, which the quartet agreed on in December, the prime minister is supposed to be appointed as part of the first phase, which also demands difficult steps from Israel.

After postponing action on the plan for months, Mr. Bush has chosen to act at a moment of some diplomatic possibility and great American leverage here. Mr. Arafat has begun to move on a prime minister, while Ariel Sharon of Israel has said the only way out of Israel’s deep recession is an end to the conflict. Israeli officials also are seeking a multibillion-dollar emergency aid package from Washington.

Mr. Bush’s wording was far less precise than that of the plan itself. He may be trying to remain ambiguous enough to create room to maneuver for Mr. Sharon, whose rightist government rejects key aspects of the plan. If so, that is a gamble. Over the last two years, other plans to restart talks have collapsed in negotiations over exactly what the wording of the documents meant

“It’s not meant to be a negotiated document,” one Western diplomat said. He said other members of the quartet would construct their own interpretation of Mr. Bush’s comments. “We will understand President Bush to mean, when he says ‘contributions,’ ‘additional details to be added,’ ” rather than changes to the existing plan, this diplomat said.

But Israeli officials interpreted Mr. Bush’s remarks more broadly. Prime Minister Sharon has said he accepts the plan, provided that it strictly fulfills the terms of a speech delivered by President Bush last June 24. Compared with the plan, that June speech was interpreted by both sides as placing more burdens on the Palestinians in the short term.

Israeli officials said they heard nothing tonight to conflict with that approach. Gideon Meir, deputy director general of the Foreign Ministry, said any plan that would “reflect precisely the presidential vision will be an important tool to implement the speech” of June 24.

He said a Palestinian prime minister who was “totally disconnected from Arafat” and who would be “acting decisively against terror and incitement” and rebuilding the governing Palestinian Authority would be a partner who “together with Israel will give its response to the road map.”

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians’ chief negotiator, was clearly alarmed, saying, “If we’re going to introduce the road map for discussions, it means at the end of the discussions there will be no road map.”

Palestinian officials have said that like the Israelis, they dispute aspects of the plan but accept it as a whole in the belief that it is to be imposed on both sides.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has pushed for President Bush to announce the plan, but even Mr. Blair seemed to have a different idea than his ally of what the plan stands for. He did not emphasize possible changes, but instead spoke of “specific steps that we are committed to.” He said Israel was expected to institute “a freeze on all settlement activity” as part of the first phase.

Mr. Bush offered a more elastic formula on settlements. “As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end,” he said.

Mr. Sharon, an architect of the settlement movement, has built a governing coalition that includes two parties closely identified with settlers, as is his own faction, Likud. He would almost surely have to form a new government with leftist factions to sustain a major move to restrain settlement.”