Following public criticism from leading figures in US President George Bush’s administration of his promise to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq “by Christmas”, on July 12, federal ALP leader Mark Latham made a partial accommodation. He announced that Kim Beazley would become the shadow defence minister and made a speech — to the Australian Institute of International Affairs — in which he reiterated Labor’s full support for Australia’s military alliance with the US and for Washington’s “war on terrorism”.
While Latham reaffirmed his promise to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas, he stated that Australian diplomatic security personnel would remain in Iraq, and warships and RAAF Orion aircraft would stay in the Persian Gulf to protect Western oil interests. He also announced that a Labor government would send up to 30 non-combat personnel to work as part of the UN mission in Iraq, particularly assisting Washington’s puppet regime to “secure” Iraq’s borders.
US ambassador Tom Schieffer responded by praising Latham’s speech and the appointment of Beazley. “We still have differences, they’re marked differences, but I think that he was trying to enunciate a policy of change”, Schieffer told Channel Nine’s Today Show.
Schieffer was particularly pleased with Latham’s appointment to the defence portfolio of “Bomber” Beazley, the Hawke Labor government’s defence minister during the 1991 Gulf War. “The fact that Kim Beazley is a known commodity to people and a person who obviously has great credentials with American administrations, be they Democratic or Republican administrations, I think that’s a very positive thing”, Schieffer said.
In his July 12 speech, Latham criticised the Coalition government’s commitment of Australian troops to the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq — not because it violated the Iraqi nation’s right to self-determination and has cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis, but because it was “unrelated to the main business” of Australia’s military forces in the “war against terrorism”.
Labor’s “priority in the war against terrorism”, Latham declared, “is South-East Asia”. This “is not just a matter of geography”, he explained, “though our geography makes it inevitable. It is because we have economic and military weight in the region and because we have expertise.”
Under the cover of the struggle against terrorism, Latham wants a return to the policies of the 1980s and ‘90s Hawke and Keating Labor governments, which prioritised using Australian military resources to protect Australian corporations' investments in South-East Asia.
“As far as the United States is concerned, we are a more valuable ally here than anywhere else in the world”, Latham declared. Why? Because “those nations with large Muslim populations — such as Indonesia and Malaysia — will not accept American forces” operating in their countries, but will accept Australian forces.
Latham is particularly keen to have Canberra return to the Hawke-Keating policy of close cooperation with the brutally repressive Indonesian military and police. By contrast, PM John Howard’s Coalition government has prioritised getting a free trade deal with the US by demonstrating that Australia is a steadfast junior military partner in Washington’s war for oil in Iraq.
In the end, this is all that the differences in foreign policy between the Coalition and Labor come down to: will investing Australian military resources in the US war in Iraq or in cooperation with the repressive regimes in South-East Asia best secure and advance the profit-making of Australian big business?
The interests of working people — in Australia, Iraq and South-East Asia — play no role at all in either the Coalition’s or Labor’s foreign policy agenda — just as they play no role in their common domestic agenda of promoting a business “enterprise” culture of “hard work” for working people and “opportunity for all” of Australia’s corporate owners.
From Green Left Weekly, July 21, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.
