Howard's dishonest case for war
Prime Minister John Howard's March 13 address to the National Press Club
clarified one thing — the Australian people have no reason at all to support
a war on Iraq. In a speech littered with emotional rhetoric, Howard recycled
the usual smoke and mirrors arguments coming from Washington to justify
a war that will result in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties.
Howard's speech contained three main arguments for war — maintaining
the US-Australia alliance; protecting Australians by preventing foreign
terrorists from getting hold of weapons of mass destruction; and liberating
the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship.
Howard has not even established that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The UN weapons inspections, restarted
late last year, have simply confirmed the assessment of former UN weapons
inspector Scott Ritter that as “of December 1998, when weapons inspectors
left Iraq, we had fundamentally disarmed Iraq”. Nothing that chief weapons
inspector Hans Blix has found has disproved this.
Nor has Howard provided any evidence that there is a connection between
Iraq and al Qaeda, the alleged perpetrator of the 9/11 terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center in New York. Howard's merely demonstrated that
al Qaeda “wanted” to get hold of WMD.
In November last year, Daniel Benjamin, the former terrorism adviser
to the US National Security Council declared that while there “have been
contacts” between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda, “there is no cooperation...
no substantial, noteworthy relationship”. Numerous military and intelligence
officers have confirmed this assessment, including Andrew Wilkie, who was
until his March 10 resignation, a senior analyst with the Office of National
Assessments.
When asked for evidence of his claim that Baghdad has any intention
of providing any weapons to al Qaeda, Howard repeats the same mantra —
there isn't enough evidence to convict in “the central criminal court in
Darlinghurst”, but if we “wait” for it, “we're looking at another Pearl
Harbor”.
The hypothetical scenario of mass deaths from al Qaeda using WMD is
being used to justify waging a war against a country that has no demonstrated
WMD and no demonstrated connections with al Qaeda!
Howard, in fact, argues that every “rogue state” (i.e., every country
that Washington is hostile toward) could be a potential supplier of WMD
to terrorists, and therefore a target for “pre-emptive” attack. In his
speech, Howard declared that if “the world is incapable of dealing strongly
and effectively with Iraq, it will not effectively discipline North Korea”
— a clear signal that Howard is willing to back a US war against North
Korea.
Of course, there is an argument for the worldwide eradication of chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons — but that would need to start with the
country with the largest arsenal of such weapons, the United States.
It is ludicrous to imagine that a decline in the proliferation of WMD
will result from launching a war against Iraq on the grounds that all “rogue
states” need to be “disciplined”. Countries threatened with such “discipline”
will strive to attain nuclear weapons in order to deter any military attack
on them by the US and its allies. It is precisely the North Koreans' fear
that Washington intends launch a “pre-emptive” attack on them, that is
driving them to develop a nuclear deterrent.
Howard's third argument for waging war against Iraq is his rather belated
discovery of the “enormous humanitarian cost, not least to the people of
Iraq, of Saddam Hussein remaining in charge”. He then proceeded to detail
some of the more horrific acts of the Iraqi regime, but failed to explain
why these “humanitarian” concerns had only become a reason for invading
Iraq 35 years after Saddam Hussein had come to power. What protests did
Howard make at any time over the last 35 years against Hussein's treatment
of his fellow Iraqis?
Compounding the hypocrisy was Howard's failure to mention the horrific
treatment refugees from Hussein's terror receive in Australia, his failure
to mention the US intention to leave much of the existing regime intact
or the appalling human rights situation in “liberated” Afghanistan.
Howard's argument for war against Iraq was, of course, buttressed by
the usual covert racism throughout the speech. Describing terrorism as
an “attack on Western values”, at one point Howard even claimed that terrorism
of the “random, mass casualty kind” was “borne of radical Islam”.
The first point of his argument for war, skipped over very briefly in
his March 13 speech, was in fact the most important for Howard. “Alliances
are two way processes”, he argued, “and our alliance with the US is no
exception. Australians should remember that no nation is more important
to our long-term stability than the United States.”
This is Howard-speak for “Australian business needs the support of the
US to keep its favoured, exploitative status in the Asia-Pacific region”.
At the end of the day, even the deputy-sheriff must pay his dues.
From Green Left Weekly, March 19, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
