Howard: who's pulling the strings?
When US President Bill Clinton called on the Australian government to back a US military strike against Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard enthusiastically agreed.
In 1991, Labor's Bob Hawke was just as enthusiastic about the Gulf War. Despite Australia not being under any threat from Iraq, the Hawke government even managed to "scrape together" enough money to send navy ships to the Gulf while it was arguing that it "couldn't afford" to adequately fund hospitals and schools.
It is widely believed in the peace and solidarity movements that the reactionary nature of Australia's foreign policy in situations such as the Vietnam and Gulf wars is the result of Australia being a "puppet" of the United States.
But far from "following the leader", the Australian government of the time called on the US government to step up its war in Vietnam.
Australia's support for repressive dictators such as Malaysian President Mahathir Mohamad and Indonesian President B.J. Habibie, because they are "good for business", indicates that the government is serving Australian business interests, not US interests.
Despite the Indonesian military's killing of at least 14 protesters and injuring hundreds more during the recent protests, all Howard can say is that the deaths are "regrettable". Australia is directly implicated in the deaths because a substantial number of Indonesian army officers have received training in killing techniques from the Australian army.
"Habibie has gone much further than expected in taking Indonesia away from authoritarianism, and the latest wave of demonstrations calling for further political reform was disturbing", Howard said.
Implicit in this statement is support for whatever repressive measures the Indonesian army takes in order to "control" the pro-democracy demonstrations.
At the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, Howard sought special privileges for Australian big business interests in Asia by saying that he would not "lecture" countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia on human rights because of the "special relationship" they have with Australia.
Howard's attempt to differentiate Australia from US criticism of the Malaysian government's human rights record, while supporting US war moves in the Gulf, reflects the fact that Australia's big capitalists have interests in common with US capitalists, as well as competing interests.
In the competition with US, European and Japanese capitalists for markets, Australian companies seek to carve out a special niche for themselves in Asia by supporting the most repressive governments in the region.
At the same time, Australia, as a regional imperialist power, has common interests with US imperialism in ensuring that Third World countries are kept underdeveloped.
It is because of these big business interests, whether in partnership or in competition with Washington, that Australian governments, Liberal or Labor, consistently come down on the side of the rich and powerful in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea.
Because of the obvious brutality and injustice of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, some activists appeal to the morality of government ministers. They believe that if individual ministers are made aware of the atrocities in East Timor and Indonesia, they will support independence for East Timor and democracy for Indonesia.
This is a strategy doomed to failure because Australian governments represent big business interests in the region.
Australian companies exploit the mineral wealth in the Timor Sea — wealth that rightfully belongs to the Timorese people. The biggest Australian companies operating in Indonesia are arm in arm with the Suharto family and his cronies — that's why the Australian government didn't want Suharto to go, no matter how many people his army killed.
If we are serious about wanting an Australian foreign policy based on social justice for the poor and oppressed majority rather than the rich and powerful minority, we must oppose Australian big business.