Unease amongst conservatives over Howard leadership

Bob Briton

On May 24, 1962 Prime Minister Robert Menzies' Defence Minister 
Athol Townley announced "at the invitation of the Republic of 
Vietnam Australia was sending a group of military instructors to 
that country to assist in the training of the people of Vietnam 
and so help defeat the Vietcong communists, whose aim is to take 
over the country by organised terrorism".

The statement was a lie from beginning to end. In 1995, with the 
release of the relevant Cabinet Papers under the "Thirty Year 
Rule", we had it confirmed that South Vietnam's President Diem 
had actually tried to dissuade Australia from joining the US's 
dirty war in South East Asia. Two years later, the US 
Administration fabricated the now infamous Gulf of Tonkin 
incident in which it claimed US naval vessels had come under 
unprovoked attack from the North Vietnamese. This was the cue for 
a massive US invasion that Australia joined to its enduring 
shame.

The acceptance of lies, particularly the phoney reasons given to 
sign up for wars to shore up imperialism and the dominance of the 
US, is not new to the Liberals. However, there are unmistakeable 
signs of disquiet in the circles that used to overlook the 
occasional whopper in the interests of maintaining the status 
quo.

Growing numbers of essentially conservative people are expressing 
their unease at the frequent use of underhand means previously 
thought justified to preserve the ends. In particular there is 
growing concern over the threat to bourgeois democracy posed by 
the direction and conduct of the Howard Government.

Recently there was the hotly debated open letter about honesty in 
government from a group of 43 former service chiefs and 
Australian diplomats. A number of the signatories subsequently 
commented in the media that the group contained Liberal voters, 
Labor voters and even swinging voters.

There could be little doubt, however, that the list of retired 
"eminent Australians" would be top heavy with conservative 
individuals that could previously have been relied on to support 
the Libs' agenda in the forces and the bureaucracy.

The letter complained that the concern about terrorism after 
September 11 had been diverted to justify the invasion and 
occupation of Iraq, that the Howard Government knew that there 
were no WMDs and that, as a result of Australia's involvement we 
are now a bigger terrorist target than before.

It warned that damage is being done to relations with our Asian 
neighbours and with the nations of the South West Pacific. The 
signatories expressed their concern that we have lost our ability 
to "choose" how we will fulfil our obligations to the ANZUS 
Treaty and that the US and the office of the President have 
suffered a precipitous decline in respect in the international 
community in the last two years.

The lies used to justify the entry into the war in Iraq were the 
chief worry, however. The letter concluded:

"Above all, it is wrong and dangerous for our elected 
representatives to mislead the Australian people. If we cannot 
trust the word of our Government, Australia cannot expect it to 
be trusted by others. Without that trust, the democratic 
structure of our society will be undermined and with it our 
standing and influence in the world."

There is genuine angst in the words about the lack of "balance" 
in the policies of the Howard Government. These old school 
conservatives would have seen major a role for the UN in world 
affairs. Howard, Bush and Blair ignore the organs of 
international law when it suits them and have substituted the 
barely disguised Nazi methods characterised by the slogan "might 
makes right".

They would have seen the need for "due process" and would 
probably be shaken by the scope of the powers given to ASIO, a 
body that has now been converted into a fully-fledged secret 
police force.

They would even have seen a role for trade unions (albeit with 
tightly limited powers) in society. Howard and successive 
ministers for industrial relations have waged war on unions since 
their election in 1996 and clearly intend to destroy them or rob 
them of any meaningful role in the workplace.

Conservatives cling to the belief that the capitalist system of 
exploitation — as it is carried on in the countries of the 
developed world — can stay in place with the consent of the 
majority of the people.

It can do this as long as manages to be perceived as "balanced" 
and its methods remain "sophisticated". It is therefore crucial 
that Australia's democratic institutions — remote and shallow-
rooted as they are — should not be brought into disrepute 
through sledgehammer tactics and blatant dishonesty.

For all the above listed reasons, John Valder — a wealthy 
retired stock broker and former president of the NSW and Federal 
Liberal Parties — has now set up a "Not Happy, John" campaign. 
Its object is to help defeat John Howard at the next elections in 
his seat of Bennelong. Mr Valder wants the Liberal Party returned 
to power in a Coalition Government but without Howard. If only 
the problem could be so neatly contained in one person!

Last week, the hopes of these conservatives would have been dealt 
a further blow with new revelations in the ongoing "children 
overboard" scandal. It turns out that an officer in the Defence 
Department (reporting to the then Minister Peter Reith) had three 
separate conversations with the Prime Minister before the last 
elections about the sinking of the SIEV 4 vessel carrying asylum 
seekers.

Mike Scrafton insists that he made it clear to the PM that 
Defence Department experts did not believe that the relevant 
video and photos showed asylum seekers throwing their children 
overboard. Mr Howard did nothing to correct the racist slur 
pedalled by his 2001 election campaign and his infamous "we will 
decide who comes to Australia" speech.

Mr Scrafton has taken a polygraph test that appears to bear out 
his account of events. Mr Howard, on the other hand, has resorted 
to weasel words again. Howard claims he "has no strong 
recollection" of such conversations and refuses to submit to a 
lie-detector test: "I will always be judged by my masters, the 
voters, and your viewers will decide my fate, they are the great 
lie detector of Australian politics".

The extraordinary turn of events — that would lead to a call for 
the PM to undergo a polygraph test — has not, apparently, caused 
Mr Howard to consider how low his credibility has fallen in the 
eyes of the public.

He will not drop his ban on ministerial staff coming before 
Senate inquiries like the current one being conducted into the 
"children overboard" scandal. Instead, he will enlist the 
mainstream media to cast doubt on those brave enough to speak the 
truth. Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty has been dealt 
this treatment. So have former Office of National Assessment 
senior analyst Andrew Wilkie and a long list of others.

Howard and his parliamentary colleagues have made many enemies 
with their makeover of the Liberals into a party of the radical 
right.

The divide is deeper than that which used to separate the "wets" 
like former Fraser minister Ian MacPhee and his "dry" 
conservative colleagues.

By the way, MacPhee went on record late in 2001 to say that 
Howard heads "the most repressive government in our history". He 
is right. As is the case with the Bush Administration in the US, 
a corner has been turned. The conservative style of managing 
capitalism has given way to something else. A road has been taken 
that could end in outright fascism if a political challenge is 
not organised and organised soon.