Hear Ye! Since 1998.
Please note: This post is at least 3 years old. Links may be broken, information may be out of date, and the views expressed in the post may no longer be held.
16
Feb 03
Sun

Armchair Opinion: War Against War

Today in Sydney, a peaceful ‘Walk Against War‘ protest took place, involving a quarter of a million people marching through the city CBD. A few days earlier, Melbourne staged a similar event which attracted 150,000 walkers. To put this number into perspective, Greater Sydney has a population of about 4 million, with the inner city holding around 1 million people. A friend who attended told me that by the time he started the walk route, the earliest walkers had already finished walking. Shopkeepers gawked at the incredible throng of people as they ambled along – young children, adults, whites, blacks, atheists, Christians, Muslims and everything in between. For over 6% of a city’s population, all belonging to no particular demographic other than holding a common aversion to war, to turn up to what was, in effect, Sydney’s largest rally ever, is an incredible statement against the increasing warmongering of the current Liberal government. (Update: Apparently around 1 million protesters were present in London, amongst the other millions around the world.)

One has to start wondering then about the catchcry of the US and its allies in this War on Terror – that this war is necessary to protect the citizens, their way of life and the democratic principles by which the West has flourished under. They seem to have neglected to mention how much capitalism, instead of democracy, has aided the economic growth of the West, but we will treat that as an oversight. Democracy, though, just what is that? One of America’s very own former Presidents once defined democracy as the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I am no political scientist, but I did learn in primary school that a democracy theoretically allows everyone to have a say. Because it is impractical for everyone in a country of 20 million, let alone 280 million, to have a say in every decision regarding a country, we elect a government. This government represents us, and we elect them according to whoever has opinions that best align with ours about how the country should be run. However, with regards to giving everyone a say, democracy does not just provide the electoral mechanism and leave it at that. Democracy is, again theoretically, meant to ensure that the government will carry out the wishes of the majority of the nation. Granted, only the naive could believe that this could ever be always the case, or indeed, that it would even be necessarily beneficial – sometimes controversial social and economic reform moves a country along better than sticking to the status quo – but nonetheless, the idea is always there, lurking as a root principle for democratic nations.

That’s why we have referendums on major issues that affect the country, such as whether Australia should become a Republic, or if the constitution’s preamble should be altered. Since Federation, Australia has tended to not carry the changes proposed in a referendum. However, even with the Republic movement only losing by a few percentage points, people accept that this is a fair result and don’t go to war over it. It is a proper procedure for implementing certain changes of national impact.

I am about to make an assumption here. I don’t think anyone would disagree with me, though. The overwhelming majority of Australians do not want war. Even without the turnout in Sydney’s march today, it is not hard to observe how many people have an anti-war sentiment. Look at the media – it is rare to find an opinion article that is pro-war. Look at the common Aussie – they find it hard to understand just why John Howard is so eager to launch pre-emptive strikes on a country half a world away. This reaction by the Australian public is hardly surprising though. Rallies everywhere around the world show nations concurring with the notion of avoiding war. Polls in Time Magazine of public opinion in many European countries show similar results.

The decision to go to war is not a light one. Not only is it a matter of considering the lives of our troops who will risk their lives for us on a distant battlefield, but our actions reflect on our nation in the global community. Reputations linger long after the dust has settled. The Australian people do not want war, but John Howard is not listening. Whatever happened to the Western ideal of upholding the democratic principles? There is no doubt that Howard fervently believes that assassinating Saddam will make the world a safer place. And it may, but it is also his duty to carry out the will of the Australian public. His title of Prime Minister makes him a leader, but the concept of primus inter pares (first among equals) grounds such a role. “This concept defines not only the prime minister’s relationship with Cabinet, but also, in a sense, his or her relationship with the public in our modern democratic society.” (Nat. Lib of Canada)

Of course, this is the man who handled the Tampa situation the way he did, and the man that announced such ‘initiatives’ as trying to assert Australia’s right and authority to take pre-emptive action against suspected terrorists in foreign countries, resulting in much annoyance from our neighbouring Muslim country which is 200 million strong not known for its socio-political stability. This man, by his actions, seems to think that Australia’s future still lies in the aging trade ties between America and Britain, not Asia. Not Asia, despite our proximity. He says we are a Western nation in the Eastern world, so we must retain our links with the West. This man, seems to think that the situation in the Middle-east, which has an insubstantial bearing upon our island continent, deserves more attention than North Korea. North Korea, a country which needed no UN inspectors to prove it had nuclear weapons because it simply announced to the world it had. A country which has thumbed its nose at the UN and US, even having the gall to use the US’ own words of ‘pre-emptive strike’ back against them, which has threatened the UN with war in the event of sanctions and which has not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons if it had to come to that in the end. North Korea simply isn’t on Howard’s agenda. North Korea isn’t the primary concern of the US, therefore it is not ours either. Never mind North Korea can directly affect our region of the world, we have to maintain our links to the West, and that means supporting Bush and Blair.

Why has Howard been so bent on invading Iraq? One cannot believe it is simply because he believes it will make the world a safer place. Declaring war cannot make the world a safer place. Our ties with the US have instead lit us up as another target for Muslim extremists (as evidenced by the statement given by the Bali bomber). His eagerness and urgency to declare war, an action generally espoused and shown in history to be something to be avoided at all costs, even though all other avenues have not yet been exhausted can only be, to me, shows he is merely following the US’ lead. To ‘strengthen our ties’ with America, to phrase it with a little more civility than Mark Latham (although I suspect that Latham’s assertions have more than just a touch of truth to them).

Australia cannot be a significant and large player in the world. Not in Howard’s lifetime, not in my lifetime, not with a population of 20 million. Even within the Commonwealth, where Australia is one of the major players, Howard’s opinions of Zimbabwe did not carry a huge amount of weight in CHOGM (opinions which I agree with, incidentally). However, Australia can be a major player in our own region: Asia. Keating saw it, Howard doesn’t.

No doubt, the US ambassador would have something to say about my opinions. He would say that I was very anti-American, as if that were a thought crime. He would say that despite me not being American. A democracy though, allows for freedom of speech. It is enshrined in the very first amendment of the US’ own treasured constitution. The US ambassador’s chastisement of Simon Crean stands in stark contrast to the principle behind that amendment. If only they stood by their first amendment as firmly as their second.

If the US’ actions and words do not align with the main principles to which they claim to seek to preserve through the vehicle of war, death and destruction, can we really readily believe any of their other claims, such as the tenuous “clear link” between Saddam and Osama? I believe for most of you, the question will be purely rhetorical.

Unfortunately, our opposition leader, Simon Crean, has only stood in weak defiance of Howard’s stance. His objections do not come with the passion of Howard’s statements. Admittedly, he realises that if he takes an abject anti-US stance, if he gets elected that may make future dealings with the US difficult. However, that only emphasises the importance of not dirtying Australia’s name within Asia. Furthermore, US has shown that it does not need to like a country to have ties with it – look at China. The so-called “old European” powers of Germany and France don’t seem to care about the US even though it is a superpower. They have been called recalcitrant, but they didn’t raise embargoes against the US at the drop of a hat like what has happened to us in the past. Instead, they are seeking alternative, peaceful solutions, which have all been categorically turned down by the US with seemingly no serious consideration. That is what our country needs, a Prime Minister and governing party that stands up for what the majority of Australians believe and want. We want what we have all been taught at school – no war, because war is always bad, especially when there are other options still existing. Bush has his own agenda, and despite protests in NY and LA, the American public seem to be behind him. He may be acting against the views of the UN, but at least he is acting with the wishes of the American public (however media influenced they may be), which is one better than Howard. What we need is a leader, not a sycophant. And certainly not the only Australian leader in the last 100 years who has had a no-confidence motion successfully passed against him for committing troops behind parliament’s, and the public’s, back.

(This is Hear Ye’s 3000th post.)

Responses:

I had
lunch with friends yesterday and everyone was very hawkish at the table.
Comments like the French and the Germans are ingrates because they refuse to
support the US unconditionally illustrate the level of hawkishness at least
in this microcosm of US public opinion. I suspect that same sentiment is
fairly pervasive among many Texans at least because they are staunch
supporters of Bush & Co. When I countered that the French and the Germans
could be doing so because they want to matter in this new political world
instead of being US vassals, my opinions made no impression.

While I agree that war is never good, I can only think back to early 1940’s
when Britain tried to appease Hitler and that ended up in World War II.
Whether or not Bush goes to war to finish what his father started or whether
he’s doing it to secure the US’ future oil supplies, whatever the reason,
only time will tell what happens. If Saddam Hussein was a despotic leader
in 1991 and deserved to be “removed” then, things haven’t changed 12 years
later.
-Marcus

This post has 19 comments

1.  teldak

YOU ARE AMAZING! No sarcasm.

Your American angle is awesome, powerful. It spoke to me. Sorry for the cliche, but it really did. I don’t know much about the Australian angle, as I didn’t learn anything about it in (American Public) school.

It’s amazing the amount of people that absolutely HATE anti-war demonstrators. They say they should be kicked out. Quite often, I hear the black-and-white fallacy, “America: love it or leave it.” in some form or another. Sickening.

On the topic: One of the essays in my current english 102 text deals with patriotism. It is a lucid explanation of the idea of patriotism. Not merely supporting your country, but wishing it well. And wishing it well may mean dissenting the powerfuls’ opinions.

btw: What was “the Tampa situation”?

2.  Pablo

Compare this posting with one say 3, or even a year ago. 3 years ago you probably would have been constantly targeted in any political science / history class.

But now, while the world has become increasingly conservative on a political scale, perhaps you have become increasingly moderate. Will be interesting to see what you’re writing after 3 years of law!

To all Americans out there – please understand that these protests are not against the US people, but against Dubya, his lobby groups and his nest of hawks.

3.  erin

“says we are a Western nation in the Eastern world”

Yes, and I hope it stays that way.

4.  Zero

Most of the people who claim they don’t want war and turn up to these bloody protests don’t even have half a clue of what’s going on in the world apart from what the local media sprout to them.

I hate to be the one to point it out, but this isn’t just about a war against only Iraq.

As for the United Nations at the moment – they’re showing themselves to be as pissweak as the way the League of Nations handled Hitler… or didn’t handle Hitler, as the case happens to be.

Personally I’m not worried about Hussein at all. It’s his fanatical Muslim followers I’m terrified of.

5.  Zero

Teldak, “Tampa” was an immigrant cargo ship which arrived near Australia about mm, 12 months ago(?)

There was a LOT of whinging from protestors saying that they should be let into the country etc, and Howard kept his stance and kept them at sea, refusing entry. From memory eventually the ship sank, but not before getting everyone off – can’t 100% remember.

Of course the whinging protestors don’t care that there’s a process for immigrants to go through if they want to live here, and that the minimum requirements for things like English etc are a complete joke – add that on top of their pathetic behavior in the detention centers.

I can leave you to figure out what you believe my stance on the whole issue is :)

6.  Stu

Zero, I guess we all see things in a different light. For some, the facts are hazy, but this is how I remember it:

The Tampa incident took place over a few weeks in 2002. Basically, a ship carrying over 400 illegal aliens (refugees) from Indonesia (mostly people all the way from Afghanistan) had sunk on the way to Australia. They were rescued by a Norweigian freighter called the Tampa. The Australian army subsequently boarded the freighter (enraging the Norweigians) and refused them entry into Australia. We sent them off to distant Nauru and New Zealand, despite them
only being 60 kilometres (35 miles) from Australia. This action was unlawful according to International law (we would be required to *process* the refugees, although not required to keep them) and was widely condemned by the world community – especially jarring when Australia is supposed to be known for its racial tolerance.

The Tampa incident was followed by other incidental issues. The army claimed the refugees were throwing their kids overboard when the ship was boarded by the army – no doubt in an attempt to dehumanise and create feelings against
the refugees in the Australian public. That evidence was found to be falsified. Our Prime Minister blamed it on the army commander. Then media focus landed on Woomera, one of our main refugee detention centres, where conditions for refugees were abhorent. Again, jarring, given our past stand on human rights. And here, on our soil, we had refugees sewing their lips (literally) together in protesting the conditions in which they were being detained. Howard was unmoved. A sad time in Australia last year, and it has only got worse since.

(I don’t doubt that Australia has sovereignty over its land and waters, but the way Howard handled the entire thing left *a lot* to be desired, and didn’t make Australia any friends that day.)

The difference between Hitler and Hussein is that Hitler kept asking for more and more. Saddam has been sitting on his own piece of turf for over a decade now – what is there to appease? In fact, what appeasement has Saddam sought? I haven’t heard that word mentioned once in the past year with regards to Iraq. Saddam is in no position to demand anything. North Korea seeks appeasement.

Let us not also forget that bin Laden has labelled Saddam (who only appeared to fully embrace Islam at a timely moment during the Gulf War to gain sympathy of its middle-eastern neighbours) an infidel.

7.  Pablo

“I hate to be the one to point it out, but this isn’t just about a war against only Iraq.”

Zero, you criticise people for apparently just following what the “local media sprout to them.” However you seem to have mindlessly bought Bush’s rhetoric on the “War against terror.”

“Personally I’m not worried about Hussein at all. It’s his fanatical Muslim followers I’m terrified of.”

First of all, I don’t dispute that Saddam is an evil despot who has killed, tortured and raped many of his own people and that his removal would be greeted by a lot of joy amongst the Iraqi people, particularly the Kurds. However, ‘liberating’ the Iraqi people via smart bombs and laser guided missiles will only result in scores of innocent casualties and more suffering for the Iraqi people.

Also, Saddam has not made any aggressive overtures since 1991 and we have not heard of any Iraqi suicide bombers, nor were there any Iraqi’s among the Sep. 11 group. Isn’t nuked up North Korea a greater threat – a state which has declared it’s willingness for a pre-emptive strike?

Furthermore, Iraq is a secular state, and it is short-sighted to simply label Iraq as a Muslim state – Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister is Christian. This is also a reason why the so-called link between the fundamentalist and fanatical bin Laden and secular Iraq is very tenuous and highly circumstantial.

8.  Zero

“short-sighted to simply label Iraq as a Muslim state”

I didn’t. Nor did I imply that all the supporters of him were Muslim. What I *did* state was that it is the Muslim followers who I’m concerned with.

“Isn’t nuked up North Korea a greater threat – a state which has declared it’s willingness for a pre-emptive strike?”

Yes, they definately are.

Unfortunately to try to juggle both at once would be far worse.

“Zero, you criticise people for apparently just following what the “local media sprout to them.” However you seem to have mindlessly bought Bush’s rhetoric on the “War against terror.””

Not really – sure, you’re basing that assumption on seeing one reply/comment from me. Believe me, there’s sure as hell a much deeper reason though, which would not take a short amount of time to explain either.

As for Tampa, Stu – yeah, you account is probably a lot more accurate than I can remember it.

When the issue was covered as well you certainly went into more detail than I cared to know about at the time.

I don’t care about the issues surrounding things like that etc. The only thing I care about is that everyone should be treated as equals, and the whole arguement on that issue is as two faced as can possibly be as to what is the morally correct thing to do.

However, sometimes the “morally correct” thing has to be thrown out when peoples own actions bring things onto themselves.

Again, as already said – the whole situation of what’s going on everywhere at the moment is not one you should make a decision over in such short amount a time as even 12 months.

9.  Pablo

“What I *did* state was that it is the Muslim followers who I’m concerned with.”

Please provide evidence that Iraqi Muslim’s are fanatical, fundamentalist, blow themselves up and are terrorists. Also, please provide evidence that they’re going to target Australia, or any other Western nation.

“Not really – sure, you’re basing that assumption on seeing one reply/comment from me.”

I’ll concede that, however you also have made a massive generalisation in saying that:

“Most of the people who claim they don’t want war and turn up to these bloody protests don’t even have half a clue of what’s going on in the world apart from what the local media sprout to them.”

“I don’t care about the issues surrounding things like that etc”

Then don’t get involved in the debate if you don’t want to get your facts right and make a proper judgement on the situation. Otherwise you’re simply a short-sighted cowboy.

10.  Zero

woohoo, flamewar… don’t stress, I’ll try to avoid providing too much fuel :)

Perhaps rather than just getting agressive you might actually consider for a fact that I might have some significantly different information to what you and others have been fed.

And yes, of course I’m making generalisations. Life is full of them – get used to it.

As for the comment on Iraqi Muslims – when did I say (specifically) they did (hint: I didn’t).

In short, stop trying to put words into my mouth, and admit for a moment that you may not have both sides of the story, nor will you or anyone else EVER know EVERY little detail which will come into being relevant.

11.  Pablo

“Personally I’m not worried about Hussein at all. It’s his fanatical Muslim followers I’m terrified of.”

Ok, let’s keep this very simple.

I assume ‘Hussein’ means Saddam Hussein. Therefore, when you say “his fanatical Muslim followers” I’m assuming you’re referring to Muslim followers of Saddam. Now unless you’re implying that Saddam has fanatical Muslim followers outside of Iraq (again, please provide evidence), I can only draw the conclusion that you’re referring to Iraqi Muslim followers of Saddam.

“..I might have some significantly different information to what you and others have been fed.”

I’m interested in seeing this information. Please provide it.

12.  Zero

What information I have is

a) Far too much to simply type out for the purpose of a reply to a comment

b) In part none of your business

I don’t ask you to explain every comment you make – in fact, I haven’t asked you to explain anything you’ve said.

And I expect the same respect back to be honest.

Like I said, you DON’T have all the facts.

13.  Stu

Zero, just a quick note to say that if you do want to discuss things like this, avoid generalising unless you can back up your generalisations – otherwise what you say doesn’t really carry any weight. Opinion is one thing, but to back up opinion with more opinion and no fact, is to hold a view that’s based on very shaky ground.

Regarding morals and the Tampa, if you genuinely care about that central issue – that humans should all have equal treatment – then you would look at the issue closer, and then you would see it is not as cut and dried as you perceive it to be. I’ll leave it at that.

One more thing – you criticise people on the protest for being uninformed, but then you proceed to say that you are consciously and intentionally uninformed, which puts you in less of a position to talk about things than those better informed. Sure, you can’t get all the facts, but obviously, the more facts, the more accurate a picture you will have. Which is why by the time you have formed an opinion about war with Iraq, the war will have already been written into the history books.

14.  Zero

Stu,

The point to be looked at is that I’m willing to admit I don’t have all the facts, and that my decision is based on what I know to be true and false.

You, and everyone else makes the same decisions in a similar fashion.

As for backing up generalisations – there’s no such thing, since they’re generalisations, and wether or not they apply to the majority or minority, they still might be true for only part of the matter in hand.

Remember, All generalisations are false :)

15.  Mister Anon

Australia doesn’t want war? That’s just fine with me. We don’t want your help any way. We can, and should, do this all by ourselves. It’s our problem, and we should solve it. If you let your heart bleed too much, you might just bleed to death.

16.  teldak

Pablo: Regarding the last lines of your first comment, more or less, ‘it’s not america, it’s bush.’

I can totally understand your viewpoint. Millions turned out for anti-war protests, world-wide. And Bush comes out and says he ‘respectfully disagree’s with them. And that war is a ‘last option.’ Yet, here he is, he offers Iraq nothing short of a total and complete regime change to avert war. Something that would, in effect, change the country wholly. Bush offers no proof he is, in fact, more than a chess-playing monkey or a tic-tac-toe playing chicken. He has ruined so many things since he came in to office. According to one article, within his first 100 days, we were in a worse recession by TWICE, than the Great Depression. I don’t know that is true, but DAMN! if it is.

17.  teldak

just at school, reading through nytimes: Bush’s comment was more or less that Hussein is a threat to peace, in his view and he respectfully disagrees with those who say otherwise.

18.  zor

Don’t worry these clowns actually believe the UN still has power. The UN would never act on Iraq, they are a joke and this whole situation is proving them to be a useless pile of crap.

Also can anyone tell me why the hell China got on the UN security council as a permanent member? Bit of a joke really.

19.  nate

but what about the reasonable, non-jingoistic argument for war?

are you proud of yourself for knocking down a straw man? perhaps the reason so many people have so little respect for the anti-war movement is that the anti-war movement treats this whole thing like a no-brainer. ‘war’s bad. invading iraq is war. invading iraq is EVILLLL’.

sorry, but it’s not that simple. and people in your camp would get a lot more respect for their opinions if they didn’t treat it so.

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.