SPEAKING
FREELY Fear and favor: The Australia-Iraq-US
equation By Rich Bowden
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online
feature that allows guest writers to have their say.
Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
During a
White House press conference after last week's talks
with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, US President
George W Bush, in an unprecedented and highly
controversial move, appeared to take sides in the
upcoming Australian election, expected in August.
Answering a question from an Australian
journalist regarding the opposition Labor Party's policy
of withdrawing the country's 850 troops from Iraq, Bush
said, "That would be disastrous ... it would dispirit
those who love freedom in Iraq. It would say that the
Australian government doesn't see the hope of a free and
democratic society leading to a peaceful world. It would
embolden the enemy to believe that they could shake our
will." The question - which was prompted by Howard -
came after the prime minister restated his commitment to
maintaining the Australian presence in Iraq.
This apparent reward for the Howard government's
long-term policy of unquestioning obedience to the White
House has many commentators in Australia claiming
interference by Bush in Australian domestic affairs
while also highlighting the policy differences between
the two major Australian parties on Iraq.
Furious Labor Party members, accusing Howard of
influencing the US president's comments, maintained that
their policy of "bringing the troops home by Christmas"
was best for the security of the country. Opposition
leader Mark Latham refused to back down and issued a
statement declaring, "The best role Australia can play
in Iraq is through humanitarian, economic and civilian
aid, not a long-term military role ... Labor never
wanted the troops there in the first place." Latham
restated his pledge to return Australian troops to the
country by Christmas and added, "Nothing President Bush
has said today changes our hopes and expectations about
the future."
Australian Greens leader Senator
Bob Brown was also scathing in his criticism of the US
president. "How dare this popinjay of a president
interfere in Australian affairs - Australian domestic
political affairs? He should pull his head in," said Dr
Brown in a statement to the Australian Broadcasting
Corp's) World Today program. "The Australian
people are quite able to judge our political leaders and
the diversity of opinion in this country, and we don't
need President Bush, from his biased and quite
small-minded point of view in Washington, telling the
Australian people what they should think or what they
should do."
A delighted Howard - who led
Australia into Iraq as an original member of the
"coalition of the willing" - denied allegations that he
influenced the president and defended Bush's right to
speak out. "Obviously he feels very strongly and I
understand that," said Howard.
However, the
president's controversial comments have thrown sharply
into focus one important aspect of the upcoming
Australian election: the gulf that exists between
Howard's Liberal/National coalition and Labor on Iraq
policy, which is almost the only major difference
between the parties discernible to the voting public. In
this regard, comparisons can be drawn between the
present political situation in Australia and the
circumstances of another Bush ally earlier this year:
Spain.
On March 11, in the midst of Spain's
election campaign, as many as 10 bombs ripped through
the Madrid underground-railway network, killing more
than 200 people and injuring thousands. Centered on the
main Atocha train station in Madrid's city center during
peak hour, the bombings shocked the nation and marked a
turnaround in popularity for the ruling conservative
Popular Party, allowing the Socialist Worker's Party,
under Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to claim a surprise
election victory. Initially blamed by the government on
the Basque separatist group ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna,
or Basque Homeland and Liberty), later evidence
concluded that the bombings were the work of al-Qaeda
sympathizers.
In analyzing the Spanish election
result, one compelling though arguable school of thought
is that voters, angry that prime minister Jose Maria
Aznar had brought al-Qaeda terrorist activity to Spain
by closely aligning Madrid with Washington, chose to
elect the candidate who had promised to bring Spanish
forces home. Newly elected premier Zapatero was good to
his word, withdrawing Spanish troops in May, to the
dismay of his coalition allies.
Terrorism
debate in Australia Australian Federal Police
Commissioner Mick Keelty created a political storm after
the Madrid bombing by implying that it had been a direct
result of Aznar's support for the war in Iraq.
Interviewed on Channel Nine's Sunday program,
Keelty replied to a question asking whether he thought a
similar type of attack could occur in Australia by
saying, "The reality is, if this turns out to be Islamic
extremists responsible for this bombing in Spain, it's
more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and
other allies took on issues such as Iraq. And I don't
think anyone's been hiding the fact that we do believe
that ultimately one day, whether it be in one month's
time, one year's time, or 10 years' time, something will
happen [in Australia]."
Howard immediately
denounced Keelty's comments, saying the police
commissioner was only "in charge of operational police
matters and the question of this analysis is not
something that directly comes in that area". Other
high-ranking ministers followed suit, with Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer, in an attack on the police
commissioner's integrity, accused him of "expressing a
view which reflects a lot of the propaganda we're
getting from al-Qaeda". Attorney General Philip Ruddock
called Keelty's views "fairly simplistic" and not backed
up by evidence.
Believed by many commentators to
have been threatened with dismissal after a call from
the Prime Minister's Office, Keelty backed down, stating
to the press that he believed his views has been taken
"out of context" and agreed with government statements
that Australia had been a terrorist target well before
September 11, 2001.
However, Keelty's view has
received fairly broad support from counter-terrorism
experts. Dr Rohan Gunaratna, head of terrorism study at
Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies,
said to reporters at the 2004 Conference of
Commissioners of Police of Australasia and the South
West Pacific Region, "Australia continues to face a
certain level of threat. This scale of threat has
increased since Australia's high-profile participation
in Afghanistan and in the Iraq campaigns."
John
Pistole, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's
executive assistant director for counter-terrorism,
agreed with this analysis in an interview on Sydney's
Radio 2UE. "I would agree with the statement that an
attack is likely inevitable. Any Western nation that is
not an Islamic state is a terror target for al-Qaeda ...
any country that allies itself with the US,
unfortunately, is a target."
Are Australians
at greater risk? Al-Qaeda extremists, having
already successfully intervened in the democratic
process in Spain, may look to repeat their actions on
Australian soil. Already shaken by the tragic events of
October 12, 2002, when 202 people - including 88
Australians - were killed by bomb blasts in two
nightclubs on the popular Indonesian island resort of
Bali, Australians now look to the forthcoming election
campaign with more than a little trepidation. The
elections are due before early next year.
Opinion polls show the prospective election
result as being finely balanced. Howard, until recently,
has been able to brush off both criticism of his support
for the war in Iraq and questions as to why no weapons
of mass destruction - the reason given for the war -
have been found. However, under the new leadership of US
critic Mark Latham - he once referred to Bush as being
"incompetent and dangerous" - the opposition Labor Party
has successfully questioned the government's pro-US
policy. With the majority of the Australian public now
disagreeing with the way the war is being prosecuted,
Iraq policy may hold the key to success or failure at
the ballot box.
However, the government has
repeatedly denied that its automatic support for the
United States has increased the risk of a terrorist
attack, muzzling any critics and apparently preferring
to score political points on the lawn of the Rose Garden
in Washington. It remains to be seen whether or not
Howard and his Liberal/National party pay the ultimate
electoral price, as did Spanish premier Aznar. All
Australians, though, hope that the country will not pay
the price of a Madrid-style terrorist attack.
(Copyright 2004 Rich Bowden. All rights
reserved.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia
Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
