In the wake of the still unfolding Abu Ghraib prisoner torture scandal, a voter backlash against Australia's participation in the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq appears to be burying the Coalition government's re-election prospects.
An AC Nielsen poll for the Fairfax press released on May 24 found that while only 29% of voters had a negative view of the Coalition government's latest federal budget, support for the ALP had risen by a further 3% since the previous month's poll. Labor's support was estimated to be 56% of the two-party preferred vote.
The poll also showed a surge in support for the strongly anti-war Greens, who are now attracting a primary vote of 10% compared with just 2% for the Australian Democrats.
The Nielsen poll found that 63% of voters believe the war against Iraq was not justified, up from 52% in September.
While a majority of voters have never been convinced that the war against Iraq was justified, after the invasion of Iraq began in March last year, most accepted the government's argument that Australian troops had to remain in Iraq to "finish the job".
However, the latest Roy Morgan Research poll reveals that a majority of voters now want Australian troops withdrawn from Iraq. When asked if Australia should have a troop presence in Iraq, 50% of respondents said no (up from 46% in April), while 47% said yes (down from 50% in April).
Reporting the results of the Morgan poll, the May 21 Melbourne Age observed that the "number of voters wanting Australia's troops out of Iraq has gradually increased over the past six weeks, coinciding with revelations of the prisoner abuse by American soldiers".
The prisoner torture scandal appears to have convinced a majority of voters to turn against any Australian involvement in the "job" of imposing a pro-US government on the Iraqi people.
PM John Howard and foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer are now making increasingly desperate attempts to argue against Labor's call to bring the troops home by Christmas.
The latest government argument is that the entire contingent of Australian troops must remain in and around Iraq to protect the 10 Australians who work at the Australian embassy in Baghdad — as if this is all that these 850 troops do.
In reality, Australian troops are directly involved in the violent repression of Iraqi resistance to the US-led occupation. The May 11 Australian, for example, ran a feature article by an Australian soldier — warrant officer Joe Day — in which he recounted how he had fought fought alongside the US marines during the latter's brutal assault in April against the Iraqi city of Fallujah — an assault which killed at least 700 Iraqis, most of them unarmed women, children and old men.
On May 25, after a car bomb exploded outside a hotel within 100 metres of the heavily fortified Australian embassy, Howard rhetorically asked: "How on Earth are you supposed to have a diplomatic representation in Iraq at the present time without protecting your men and women on the ground?"
ALP foreign affairs spokesperson Kevin Rudd responded to Howard's taunts by saying a Labor government would act on advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on what protection the Australian embassy in Iraq required.
But it is Canberra's political and logistical support for the US-led occupation of Iraq that makes Australian embassy personnel potential targets. By failing to point this out, Labor has enabled the government and its media backers to claim that it is "rethinking" its pledge to bring the troops home by Christmas.
Labor has clearly gained voter support as a result of its commitment to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq. Any perceived ambiguity about this pledge will only help the Howard government claw back its eroding support among voters — and help it avoid paying the electoral price it deserves for its involvement in the unjust invasion and occupation of Iraq.
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, June 2, 2004.
Visit the