Howard beats war drums

Prime Minister Howard's address to the ultra-conservative 
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)* last Friday was an 
occasion for him to attempt to strike fear into the Australian 
public and to demand adherence to the US alliance. His speech was 
peppered with fear-mongering remarks: "the terrible threats of 
the 21st century", "critical dangers", "grave threats", 
"horrendous prospects", "terrible dilemmas".

To justify this fear-mongering he identifies the "danger of 
terrorism and weapons proliferation" and gives it an identity by 
referring to "Islamic extremists".

The response of the Howard Government is almost entirely limited 
to beefing up the military. He told his listeners that 
"Additional investments have been made to strengthen the 
effectiveness and sustainability of the Army; to improve air 
defence protection to deploying forces; to enhance the lift 
capability for deployment; and to position the ADF [Australian 
Defence Forces] to exploit current and emerging network-centric 
warfare advantages".

To this is added "better laws [meaning the steady fascisation of 
the so-called anti-terror legislation], stronger terrorism-
fighting agencies and enhanced international cooperation [meaning 
the Australia-US alliance].

In a clear indication that the Howard Government sees its role 
not merely as a Pacific policeman but as a global cop, he said, 
"Australia needs to use all available means to promote global and 
regional security".

United Nations

The United Nations is to be either used or cast aside depending 
on whether its decisions suit the interests of Australia, the US 
and its allies. Howard said, "While Australia works with and 
through the United Nations the only real test is whether 
Australian interests and values are being well and truly served". 
When that mechanism is ineffective "coalitions of like-minded 
countries will be required to act. We use the multilateral system 
to advance our national interests".

We are now told that the justification for the invasion and 
occupation of Iraq was not "whether the regime had weapons of 
mass destruction", but its alleged "non-compliance with UN 
resolutions" and that "the alliance relationship was a factor in 
the Government's decision". In common language this means that 
when told to jump by the US ring-masters the Australian 
Government did so without question.

The Prime Minister is gung-ho in defence of the US alliance and 
declares that "the United States would see a unilateral 
withdrawal by one of the original coalition partners as an 
unfriendly act". Whether in that circumstance the United States 
would regard Australia as yet another "failed state" to be 
invaded and have a US-friendly government imposed is not stated, 
but the inference is there.

We are told that Iraq is now "the front-line" and that 
"terrorists have flooded into Iraq" but Howard refuses to admit 
that those countries that invaded Iraq are directly responsible 
for creating that situation. Al-Qaida terrorists were not to be 
found in Iraq before the invasion.

Involvement in US wars

The US alliance "delivers enormous benefits to Australia", 
claimed the Prime Minister. The fact is that the US alliance has 
seen Australian involvement in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, the 
first Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan and the current war 
and invasion of Iraq.

The "benefits", we are told, are Australia's "privileged access 
to an unrivalled set of military and intelligence assets". One 
wonders how valuable US intelligence is when set against the 
abysmal failings of that intelligence before 9/11 and the total 
disarray of US measures to intercept the hi-jacked aircraft at 
that time. It was their contrived "intelligence" about weapons of 
mass destruction that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The Howard Government is in awe of US military power. The Prime 
Minister says that "No country approaches the global power and 
influence of the United States". We are told that the US spends 
"43 percent of global military spending". Yet this "global power" 
has not brought peace and security to the world but instead what 
Howard himself describes as "the terrible threats of the 21st 
century".

Howard speaks of the "noble purposes" of US foreign policy "down 
the ages". The large number of countries that have been invaded 
by the US and have had US military bases dotted across their 
territory may have a different view of these alleged "noble 
purposes".

Asia

When speaking of relations with Asia the totally selfish basis of 
the Howard Government's attitude is again revealed. He told his 
audience, "What is needed is a clear sense of how to advance 
Australia's prosperity and security in Asia". Reference to 
"common interests" is tacked on.

Howard decries talk of "neo-colonialism", claiming that 
Australia's new "Pacific partnership is based on our willingness 
to commit resources for decisive action". By that he means 
willingness to take decisive military action.

He claimed that "Australia commands respect based on our military 
capability, our economic strength, our strong alliance 
relationships, our diplomatic engagement and our willingness to 
take a stand".

It is to be noted that he makes reference to "our military 
capability" first and believes that Australia's "strong alliance 
relationships" (with the US) brings respect. It might bring fear 
but not respect.

Howard's address is also peppered with attacks on the Labor 
Party. It was electioneering at its worst even though it was 
promoted as a major foreign policy statement.

His address had an almost total emphasis on military preparations 
for involvement in war and the fear that he is intent on 
promoting by the references to the "horrendous prospects" facing 
the world.

Devoid of honesty

Devoid of any shame or honesty, Howard continues to justify the 
invasion and occupation of Iraq although there is no longer any 
talk of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. The 
allegation that Saddam Hussein had links with al-Qaida has also 
been blown out of the water.

The ground has been shifted to allegations that the ALP's 
commitment to withdraw Australian troops by Christmas will 
encourage "terrorists" and damage Australia's relations with the 
US.

Howard's claim that "a capacity to speak openly and frankly with 
the United States is an asset no Australian leader should put at 
risk", is shown to be hollow rhetoric given that that is exactly 
what Mark Latham did — speak "openly and frankly". The savage 
reactions by a number of US leaders to the ALP's withdrawal plans 
show that the only opinions that the US leaders want to hear are 
those that coincide with their own.

Howard said that in supporting the US, Australia "might have to 
join other military coalitions". The reality is that the US 
alliance will drag Australia into other military conflicts at the 
summons of the US leaders while the militarisation of Australia 
is a fast-tracked preparation for these future military 
adventures.

* * *

*The Australian Strategic Policy Institute was set up by the 
Howard Government to provide it with allegedly "independent" 
advice. Its independence has to be questioned because it is 
financed out of the Federal Government's military budget. It has 
played a leading part in preparing for and justifying Australia's 
occupation of the Solomon Islands and other allegedly "failed 
states".