ACT Network Opposing War
31 January 2003
Garema Place - Canberra
Good Afternoon and thankyou for allowing me time to speak here today. In
what has been a difficult time for the people of Canberra, it is unfortunate
that we must gather here to oppose the prospect of a US lead campaign against
Iraq.
After the release of Hans Blix’s report this week, George Bush is more intent
than ever on breaking down Multilateralism, of breaking down the UN’s Authority
to determine a collective action.
But what is more frightening is our complete lack of control over the actions
of our own prime minister. John Howard is out on a limb. He does not have the support of the federal
parliament. He does not have the full support of his own party. And most importantly he does not have the support of you and our fellow
Australians.
And to make matters worse, John Howard is not telling us the truth. Only Yesterday, Mr Howard was heard on numerous radio programs across the
country proclaiming the value of peace. But he along with the Defence Minister has been proclaiming support of the US
Policy of first strike since June 2002.
And while Mr Howard’s assurances of peace were delivered across the airways,
the voice of US Deputy Secretary of Defence, on the ABC’s 7:30 Report revealed
the true meaning of Howard’s peace - A peaceful resolution, standing in
solidarity with the United States.
Is this possible? I would say no. How can John Howard proclaim the want of a peaceful resolution as he stands
at the dock waving our troops goodbye? How can he say he has not made a personal commitment to George Bush when our
ships are already there?
The prime minister of Australia needs to start answering a few questions, and
show us some true leadership. Australia does have a strong alliance with the United States, and under
Article 1 of our alliance, of which Australia and the US are signatories; we
must resolve international conflicts through the United Nations. Why has he not pointed this out to President Bush? Why has he not used the
strength of our relationship with the United States to express our concerns and
to ask our ally to back the authority of the United Nations?
This country needs now, more than ever before, leadership, which speaks for
the people of Australia. We need a prime minister who is committed to the defence of our country and
its people through the quest of security and peace. But John Howard does not have the defence of our nation at heart.
He has been busy talking up a war and deployment of troops, with George Bush,
but has failed to mention that he has reneged on a $4 Billion dollar Defence
funding commitment. A serious blow to the standard of our defence mechanisms and yet another
broken election promise. How can we believe him?
As I am sure you heard this morning the great Nelson Mandela, who is usually
restrained in his criticism, condemned George Bush for his attempt to “police
the world without any authority from the international body.”
In Nelson Mandela’s words, George Bush is;
“a President who has no foresight, who can not think properly, is now wanting
to plunge the world into a holocaust.”
The UN was pivotal in the ending of apartheid in South Africa, and today
Nelson Mandela again placed the authority where it rightfully should lie, in the
collective power of the United Nations.
So far the UN Weapons Inspectors have done a thorough, exhaustive job, but
they have only just begun. They must be allowed to complete their task, without the time constraints
that George Bush seems determined to dictate. If proven to have weapons of
mass destruction Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. But this can ONLY be
done through the United Nations.
We must demand that Mr Howard show us the leadership which our democracy
demands. Stand up in defence of Australia; don’t whimper in the shadow of America.
Thankyou.
Contribution to
the parliamentary debate regarding Australia's participation in the Iraq
conflict.
5 February 2003
We should not be here today debating WHEN we should decide to join the attack
on Iraq. We should be debating IF we should go to war at all.
It is important to remember the UN has long worn criticism for being the
political plaything of the US. So in the first instance, a UN sanctioned
conflict should not and does not necessarily mean that the conflict is
principled or morally justifiable. So it is not surprising that the US and
Australia for years advocating the importance of the UN.
But the world is headed towards war and it would appear that despite the
existence of the United Nations, which is the body established to collectively
decide the appropriate action, in this case against Iraq, our Prime Minister is
intent on joining a US lead unilateral attack.
This has been proved by the leaked memo released yesterday, confirming what
we have been saying all along. John Howard is committed to a war against Iraq.
Continuing the rhetoric of the `War on Terrorism', Bush has mobilised the
same terms to argue for an invasion of Iraq. Iraq and Terror are now synonymous
thanks to the manipulative political campaign by the Bush administration. The
rhetoric of the US president has been repeated by the Australian Prime Minister.
Both campaigns have mobilised divisive and racist sentiment by playing with
the notion of the West and the Rest, where Islam is painted as the `Other',
something different and dangerous to the Australian `way of life'.
Labor principles and my personal convictions determine that I argue for a
more inclusive Australia. In doing so in the context of this debate I reject
this appalling rhetoric and have sought to examine the truths of the arguments
behind an invasion of Iraq.
Any debate on this issue must include an explicit rejection of racism, and an
explicit recognition of the fact that Australia's society embodies a diversity
of cultures and beliefs. This cannot be subsumed into John Howard's dichotomised
perspective on the world.
The Prime Minister tells us that he doesn't want a war, but his actions speak
far louder than these words. Australians certainly do not want war and are smart
enough to challenge the propaganda and I commend the community leaders who are
speaking out against the Prime Ministers shameless acquiescence to the Bush
agenda.
So when Mr Howard tells us he wants to put to President Bush directly the
views of the Australian people, we know his real intention is to build his
international profile, and to assure the US President that in spite of the
widespread opposition to US unilateralism, Australia will remain by Bush's side.
In the United States, support for a unilateral invasion of Iraq remains at
30%, a fraction of the support for the previous invasion of Afghanistan.
There is increasing reluctance in both the United States and Australia to be
drawn by spurious arguments of the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
This link remains unproven - American intelligence agencies have acknowledged
as such - and so Bush has sought to justify his determination for invasion on
other grounds.
Historical resistance on the part of the Iraqi regime to UN weapons
inspections and repeated violations of human rights by the regime have been
presented as alternative motivations for war.
These are the issues that need to be debated; the divisive and empty rhetoric
of Bush and Howard cannot be our justification for war.
Iraq has acquiesced to the obligatory weapons inspections under Resolution
1284 of the Security Council.
American and British pressure on other members of the Council to pass a new
resolution, that includes a right to strike as an automatic consequence of
non-compliance with the new resolution, has met a cool response from the other
permanent members.
France, China and Russia have all emphasised alternative, non-military,
resolutions prior to consideration of multilateral military action.
The Bush administration, however, is determined to follow the latter course
by `push[ing] Baghdad into a corner and Great[ing) a pretext for a war they've
already decided to wage'.
In rejecting Saddam's acquiescence to the existing UN resolution and
persisting in pressuring other members of the Security Council to support this
new resolution, Bush is backing Saddam, and the Iraqi people with him, into a
conflict they cannot escape.
Howard's support for Bush-style militarism strongly suggests the commitment
of Australian troops to this probable unilateral action; this both goes against
Australian commitment to the primacy of the UN in international relations, and
commits Australian troops to an unjust war without pursuit of diplomatic
solutions.
The level of international debate around the issue of Iraq, with concern
about the access to weapons munitions by UN inspectors and the divisive rhetoric
of world leaders such as Bush and Blair, has shown little concern for the Iraqi
people.
The impact of the oppressive regime under which they live is compounded by
the devastation on the population of poor infrastructure and malnutrition.
In the twelve years since the imposition of UN sanctions on Iraq, the economy
has failed to recover from the 50% contraction caused by the 1991 Gulf War.
Despite the 1996 introduction of the oil-for-food programme, poverty and
starvation are rife; one in eight Iraqi children will not live beyond their
fifth birthday.
The Gulf War Allied use of depleted uranium has resulted in a massive cancer
rate, the majority of which cannot be cured because of the ban on importation of
necessary medical supplies under the UN sanctions.
The oil-for-food programme contains no cash component and so necessary
infrastructure such as hospitals and schools remain in drastic need of
rehabilitation - one in four Iraqi children drop out of school, and it is
estimated that 8000 schools are in dire need of rebuilding.
The economy is unable to support such a massive rebuilding effort - its oil
fields, among the richest in the world, remain largely unexploited because of
outdated machinery.
The machinery cannot be updated because of the UN sanctions, which prohibit
the importation of necessary spare parts.
Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has already indicated
their primary interest in Iraq lies in the exploitation of its oilfields.
Powerful business interests in the United States and elsewhere in the West
have expressed similar intentions. Yet invasion of Iraq would cement the
misfortune of its population.
Aid organisations around the world have lobbied governments to oppose an
invasion of Iraq, arguing that “years of war and sanctions have already created
an extremely vulnerable population whose ability to cope with any hardship is
very limited”.
The sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN have had little effect on Saddam or
his military - “the economic sanctions have not hurt him ... just the ordinary
people who are his victims”.
Invasion would serve only to compound that suffering. Military intervention
of any kind would create a further humanitarian disaster, rather than address
any that currently exists.
In engaging in this debate it is imperative to consider the lives of those
who have been forgotten, and to consider the impact of such an intervention on
those lives.
I remain entirely unconvinced by the rhetoric; this war is about oil and
domination more than disarmament”.
There is no humanitarian motivation in military intervention into Iraq, only
a concern for the bank balances of the West.
Labor has a strong tradition of supporting a multilateral approach to
international relations, which would be profoundly contradicted by us following
Bush blindly to war.
John Howard is fear-mongering, in the same way he did in the Children
Overboard Affair and with the Tampa.
Labor must set the boundaries of debate by arguing, with passion and
conviction, against taking up this barbaric task we have been set.
