BY ALISON DELLIT
"We have allies and Australia is an ally. And I think it's good to always recognise the contributions that allies make and we've had no greater contribution [to the War on Terror] from anywhere in the world than the contribution we've had from Australia" —US ambassador to Australia John Schieffer, September 14.
On September 13 — the day after he addressed the United Nations General Assembly — US President George Bush sent a letter to Australian Prime Minister John Howard, thanking him for his "counsel" since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. The gesture, while token, was a stamp of approval for the Coalition government's unwavering support for US war plans against Iraq.
In the last two months, as Washington's sabre rattling has reached fever pitch, Howard and his cabinet have refused to criticise a single statement of the US government. Calling the Bush gang's desire to take military action against Iraq "understandable", Howard has indicated that Australians could be fighting alongside a US-led invasion force.
On Neil Mitchell's program on Melbourne radio station 3AW on August 2, Howard was asked if it was necessary for UN weapons' inspectors to "have a look" before the US took military action. His response was: "One of the difficulties of course is that the regime in Iraq has been very resistant to United Nations' inspections. It's all very well to say go in and have another look. That assumes that you'll be able to have bona fide look and that is part of the problem."
Other comments on the same program made the government's support for US military action clear: "If you don't do something now [Iraq] will perhaps acquire a nuclear capacity, [it] might in the not too distant future use [its] weapons of mass destruction against neighbours, against Israel but not only Israel, against other countries ... unless you act sooner rather than later it will be too late and the world will then turn around and say to the United States why didn't you do something about this problem ... In the end it is always in Australia's national interest to see that the threat posed by people like [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] is not allowed to go completely unchecked."
However, after Bush's September 12 address to the UN, Howard switched tack slightly, insisting in a September 13 interview on radio station 3LO that, "We've made it clear to the United Nations ... that we favour the United Nations doing its job". He was clear, however, that if it didn't "do its job", Australia would consider supporting a US-led attack on Iraq.
The Coalition government's complete toadying to the US was most apparent following the September 16 announcement that Iraq would let UN weapons inspectors back into the country. After "cautiously greeting" the news, Howard waited until Bush had trivialised the offer before making a statement to parliament condemning the "significant omissions" in the offer that he had "discovered on further perusal".
The Coalition's unconditional support for a US war against Iraq runs directly counter to the opinions of the vast majority of Australians. In contrast to both last year's US-led war on Afghanistan, and the 1991 Gulf War, every opinion poll taken this year has shown that more Australians oppose a military attack on Iraq than support it, and an overwhelming majority oppose Australian participation in an attack that does not have UN sanction.
A few days after Newspoll results were released on September 14 showing that 75% of Australians were opposed to Australian participation in a non-UN sanctioned attack on Iraq and 47% were opposed to any participation in any attack even if sanctioned by the UN, a Morgan poll taken on September 14-16 confirmed the results. It found that 54% of respondents said they disapproved of "Australia being part of an American military force to depose Saddam Hussein"; 40% approved.
This contrasts sharply to public opinion polls in 1990, a few months before the Gulf War started. Then, just 41% said they disapproved of Australian participation in a US-led attack, while more than half supported it. This difference was also reflected when Australians were asked if they approved of the US using military force against Iraq. While in December 1990, 57% of respondents approved and 37% disapproved, in the most recent poll approval ran at just 45%, slightly less than disapproval at 47%.
This is hardly surprising: there is no reason for the vast majority of Australians to support a war against Saddam Hussein. Such a war would slaughter thousands more Iraqis than those who have already been killed by intermittent US-British bombing campaigns.
Further, it would lay the basis for fanatical Muslim terrorist groups to make new recruits and increase the risk of terrorist attacks against civilian citizens of countries participating in a war on Iraq.
Howard himself has struggled to make the case for military action against Iraq. Despite nearly a dozen appearances on talk-back radio between September 13 and September 20, each time he has failed dismally to put a case that is even remotely convincing.
During the September 13 3LO interview, Howard told a caller wanting to know what Iraq had to do with Osama bin Laden: "The 11th of September has told us that we're all much more vulnerable than we thought we were." The caller had started out reasonably friendly to Howard, but became increasingly irate with his obfuscation.
Perhaps knowing that the public just doesn't buy the alleged Iraq-terrorism link, Howard has started to focus more on the "security threat" posed by Iraq's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction. After initially implying more evidence of their existence was coming to light, Howard has had to resort to arguing that the "old", unsatisfactory, evidence is enough to make the case.
The government's attempts to focus on Iraq's breaching of UN resolutions has also proved unconvincing territory on talkback radio, as callers have easily exposed the hypocrisy of Howard's support for Israel, despite that country's possession of weapons of mass destruction and breaching of dozens of UN resolutions.
Howard's biggest advantage in backing Washington's march to war has been the lack of any real opposition to the war drive from the ALP. Fundamentally supportive of its US imperialist ally, the Labor Party has sought to get some electoral advantage out of the current situation by emphasising its "reluctance" to support unilateral military strikes by the US.
But the difference between the positions of the two major parties is fairly slim. Labor has not ruled out support for a unilateral US attack on Iraq. Instead, it is arguing that the evidence needed for such an attack is greater than if an attack is UN sanctioned.
Federal Labor leader Simon Crean told parliament on September 17 that the ALP would support unilateral US military action if there was convincing evidence that the Iraqi government was complicit in 9/11 terrorist attacks or if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The ALP leader in the Senate, John Faulkner, moved an amendment to the government's September 17 statement on Iraq, specifying that evidence to justify a unilateral US attack does not yet exist. (This would not rule out immediate ALP support for a UN sanctioned attack.) The amendment was opposed by the Coalition.
Despite many believing that this is a shift in Labor's position, it is exactly the same as the position put in the ALP's April statement on a potential war on Iraq. Labor has not closed off any option for supporting a US attack on Iraq. Both the ALP and the Coalition are calling for the UN to adopt another resolution which would lay the groundwork for an attack on Iraq.
Labor has voted against a Democrats' motion calling for a Senate inquiry, including public submissions, into government policy on Iraq. It also voted down a Greens' motion calling for no Australian participation in a military strike on Iraq.
In a media interview on September 19, Crean said the ALP would support Australian participation in a war on Iraq at the same level as Australia's involvement in the Afghanistan war, including sending SAS troops. This came as a shock to some Labor MPs, such as Tanya Plibersek, who had been arguing that Labor would only agree to co-operate with an attack, not offer troops.
Plibersek, along with Tasmanian MP Harry Quick, opposed any war outright on the floor of parliament. Quick has threatened to cross the floor if the ALP votes with the Coalition to support a war on Iraq. Such actions are to be commended, and encouraged.
Other Labor MPs, including Carmen Lawrence, also spoke in parliament against war, emphasising the devastating effect that such a war could have on Iraq. They did not, however, rule out supporting such a war if the UN "process was exhausted". This will almost certainly lead to an acceptance of war, given that the UN process has been designed in order to provide Washington with a pretext for a war it desperately wants.
The ALP's overall acceptance of the war framework was highlighted in parliament on September 16. Under fire from shadow foreign affairs minister Kevin Rudd, Howard pointed out: "Nobody on the front bench of the Labor Party seriously argues against the proposition that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. I can only regard [Rudd's] posturing as political point scoring." Rudd did not reply to this, instead changing the subject.
Despite the fake debate constructed between the Coalition and the ALP, both will, eventually, do what the US wants them too. Both parties will support the US war drive because both parties' are committed to defend the interests of Australian big business, and the latter benefits from the US-led rich countries' domination of the Third World, particularly the oil resources of the Middle East.
The ALP's pretence at being critical of the US war drive is spurred by the obvious increase in popularity won by the Greens as a result of their unequivocal opposition to a war against Iraq.
In sharp contrast to the weeks that it took them to clarify their opposition to war on Afghanistan, the Greens have vocally opposed any military action against Iraq from the time the question was first posed. Such opposition was expressed in Greens Senator Kerry Nettle's first speech to parliament in July.
As a result, support for the Greens has jumped in the polls. In a Newspoll released on September 17, the Greens were polling at 8% — their highest ever. The increased support for the Greens corresponded with a fall in support for Labor.
But with the two major parties supporting Washington's war drive, the fight against it will not be won in parliament. The poll results, confirmed by the response that Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly has been receiving for its anti-war campaigning covers, indicate, however, that Australian participation in this war could be stopped by mass protests on the streets against the politicians supporting it.
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, September 25, 2002.
Visit the