From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 23:02:09 MST
Spudboy100 wrote:
> Robert Bradbury asks:
> <<And so I am forced to ask -- *where* is Europe in all of this?
> How bad would it have to get before Europe would bring itself
> to the table as a really active participant? [It seems like
> all the recent NATO activity has been simply having pleasant
> conferences and more form rather than substance.>>
> I wonder if the Aussies now feel any aggression
> toward the Islamic Jihadis now or will they wait till
> Sidney is hit with sarin?
Actually its Sydney.
I don't know to what extent the Bali bombing featured in the
American media, but some Australians have been bloodied by
terrorist action.
Huge chunks of Parliamentary Sitting time have gone into
debating new laws for "homeland security" and to what extent we
should back the US if it goes into Iraq.
September 11 flooded the news media here, Prime Minister
Howard who happened to be in the US at the time (in an act
that was probably well meaning but politically precipitous
promised George W Australia's full support, without
consulting the Australian Parliament or it seems his
colleagues.
Initial bipartisan support for the Bush Administrations approach
to the 'war on terror' was strong but it was not able to be
maintained. This was in part I think because George W made
a few statements that were so easily caricatured as that
of an American who had not travelled overseas and had
seen too many Westerns. Commentators noted that George
W's wife was also inclined to chide him playfully with his simple
language "are you really going to 'Get 'em' Bushie, are you?"
This was almost good to hear because I got the sense that
the head of "the worlds most powerful country" might just be
brighter than the lowest common denominator messages
he was sending out, and, even if he wasn't then there were
some around him that had influence and felt free enough to
chid him.
I'm not sure if you are aware that Australian SAS troops did
go into Afghanistan, and have only recently been withdrawn, in
all probability so they will be available to assist the US with any
action it takes in Iraq. Realistically it is not *numbers* of troops
that matter to the US from allies like Australia, but the US,
being able to make a list of other "freedom loving democracies"
that are backing it in its view.
It would be a source of major political wrestling between
the major parties here if Australia has to decide to back the
US without UN sanction.
Following September 11, and before the recent "terrorist"
explosions in Bali which saw around 90 Australians killed
amongst a death toll of twice that, Australian political and public
opinion seemed to switch from sympathy for the victims and
their families AND support for the Bush Administrations policy
towards a much more cautious approach to support. This seems
to mirror on a diluted scale the Democrats support for the Bush
Administrations approach.
There has been occasional incidents of hostility to resident
Moslems, here in Australia. I don't hear the words Islamic Jihad
often. Rather its words like "terrorists" or occasionally Islamic
fundamentalists or extremists. It seems some trouble (fortunately)
is being taken not to treat all Moslems (especially those living
here) as terrorists.
Sarin gas attack on Sydney might incite more racial and
religious aggression but I don't think I would have much of a
effect in term of causing more troops to be sent (if that is even
desirable -seems numbers of soldiers is not really the point in a
"war on terror" as your not dealing with standing armies) or in
the political support for the "war on terror". The political support
for the is already there. Though there is a difference perceived
by many in "going after terrorists" and invading Iraq.
Ousting the Taliban was one thing. There is far less political
support (though with the current balance slightly more on the
go-with-Bush/America-with-or-without-the-UN, if it gets to that)
after Iraq. The Australian Labor Party (in Opposition) has the policy
of not going into Iraq without a UN resolution and I think recently
they change it to be even with a UN resolution, arguing that our
defence force is small and already overstretched in contributing
to policing the Gulf, a couple of cruisers, an UN umbrella-ed
peace keeping force in East Timor etc. The Opposition that is
trailing the government considerably in the polls is trying to
differentiate itself. It is quite likely that in government it would
actually move more towards a position of supporting what the
US does.
It also rankles a few folk (actually maybe not that many
in the total population attend to such things - but of those
that do) that the US is holding out on environmental treaties
(as also is Australia, but Australian's are not averse to criticising
their governments policies any more than American's are) and
on the establish a system whereby everybody (not everybody
except the US military) could be held accountable for war crimes.
Personally, I am concerned about (but don't necessarily disagree
with) the break with precedents such as not knocking off the
heads of sovereign foreign countries and invading sovereign foreign
countries (depends on whether it is for a sufficiently good cause).
Tossing Iraq out of Kuwait was on thing. Tossing Saddam out
of the world by going into Iraq on the basis that he *might* in
future do something hostile is another. The big concern is
precedent. If American does it it will be hard for it to argue
against other countries like China doing it. IMO this could be
a huge step backwards (or forwards) for civilization depending
on whether the UN is involved.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:22 MST