Learning lessons from the monumental and bloody mistakes of the recent past
Blog Post | Blog of Scott Ludlam
Monday 15th February 2010, 6:22pm
by ScottLudlam in
In March 2003, Prime Minister John Howard announced combat operations had begun and Australian troops had crossed the border as the Shock and Awe bombardment lit up Baghdad.
The decision had been made - the invasion was already underway as Howard spoke into the TV cameras, informing Australians that we were at war.
In a democratic nation with a bicameral parliament constituted to decide on matters of state, this call was left up to Howard and his Cabinet. Seventeen people.
As Prime Minister John Howard said on that same night, "We are determined to join other countries to deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, its chemical and biological weapons, which even in minute quantities are capable of causing death and destruction on a mammoth scale."
Those claims were utterly false, and the PM already had that advice in his pocket. Since then 4693 Coalition service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, including two Australians. At least 110,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have met violent deaths. Iraq now has nearly five million orphaned children.
Hundreds of thousands of Australians across Australia marched against the invasion, and I was one of them. The Prime Minister ignored us and went to war regardless.
While citizens do delegate responsibilities to leaders by electing them, the democratic system includes an ongoing forum for discussion where leaders must provide reasoning and minimal accountability for their decisions: the Parliament.
Howard's was the first government in modern history to go to war without the support of both houses of parliament. This must never happen again. The responsibility of sending Australian men and women into harms way should not happen behind closed doors - it is a call that should be made in the open by elected members and the public they are meant to represent.
That's why I've taken carriage of a Private Senator's Bill designed to amend the Defence Act (1903) to require parliamentary approval to send Australian troops to war.
A decades-old piece of unfinished business, introduced by the Australian Democrats in the 1980s, it has since been taken up by the Australian Greens as a way of giving the people a say in whether we wage war.
A debate is under way in the UK, the very source of our own Westminster system, to transfer the prerogative power to declare war, ratify treaties and appoint judges from the executive to the parliament. Our ally the United States has a similar provision that subjects the decision to go to war to a broader forum - Section 8 of the US Constitution says, "Congress shall have the power to declare War".
This bill would bring Australia into line with other democracies like Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey where troop deployment is set down in constitutional or legislative provisions. Some form of parliamentary approval or consultation is also routinely undertaken in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway.
Arguments against using our democratic structures on the grave issue of troop deployment include that it would be "impractical", "restrictive" and "inefficient". Such arguments ignore the fact that parliaments make complex and nuanced decisions, rapidly when necessary, and that the bill has been carefully drafted for circumstances when recourse to Parliament might not be possible.
While autocracies or dictatorships may well be more speedy and efficient, they are not legitimate or acceptable forms of government.
The Rudd Government has quietly aligned itself with the Opposition in pre-emptively opposing the bill. The same empty bipartisan consensus saw the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade decide against holding a public hearing into the bill, a standard part of Senate Inquiries into issues of public importance.
So on Friday 12 February I took the unusual step of convening a hearing in Parliament House, with or without the major parties. The evidence we took from an impressive witness line-up will be submitted to the committee in the form of a minority report, and placed in the public domain to further the debate.
People like Brigadier Adrian D'Hage, who is one of our most distinguished former soldiers, Professor Colin Warbrick, who assisted the UK parliamentary committee inquiry, Dr Sue Wareham from the Medical Association for Prevention of War, Neil James of the Australian Defence Association, Paul Barratt, a former Defence Secretary, and Professor Helen Ware, an author, academic and former Australian High Commissioner converged on the capital to debate the pros and cons.
I should emphasise I didn't expect all these witnesses to support the proposal (it wouldn't have made for a very interesting hearing if they did) - but each of them expressed a willingness to explore the issues and brought their expertise to bear.
We need to learn lessons from the monumental and bloody mistakes of the recent past. History, in this instance, must not be allowed to repeat.
Senator Scott Ludlum
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
When will they be held accountable?
"Since then 4693 Coalition service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, including two Australians. At least 110,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have met violent deaths. Iraq now has nearly five million orphaned children."
This just makes me want to see someone being held responsible for this. How can Howard and Co lie, help cause thousands of deaths then have the audacity to deny the persecuted asylum in the country the caused the problem in the first place. Shame on his cabinet and the people who allowed this to happen without looking further into it.
Thanks Senator Ludlum for this action. You have support.
Do Iraq and Afghanistan qualify as wars?
If you democratise war then no leader can be held to account. For it would not be the prime minister, nor the executive which declares war, it would be parliament, and by so doing the war would be inherently legal.
Yes, Howard lied as to our reasons for going to war, he had to, as the truth was unsellable. "Australia declares war on Afghanistan because the USA has declared war on Afghanistan and John Howard was in Washington on September 11. The USA declared war on Afghanistan because Afghanistan failed to have an extradition treaty with the USA, and (accordingly) the Afghan's refused to hand over Bin Laden." Unsellable. "The USA declared war on Iraq because they wanted to remove economic sanctions against Iraq but they could find no way to do so without losing face. Australia is declaring war on Iraq to reduce the appearance that the USA is acting unilaterally." Unsellable.
I often wonder whether terming the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as war does justice to our soldiers of the past. I know that soldiers come back damaged from war zones, both physically and mentally, but in terms of military deaths, we've lost less than 1 soldier per year in Iraq, and around 2 per year in Afghanistan. Australia suffers a greater loss of life (in the road toll) if a long weekend is wet rather than fine.
More Power to you Scott.
I spent the week that Iraq was invaded with a newly arrived Iraqi friend and her young son. It was a hellish week for them watching the TV, not being able to contact their family, while Howard and Bush were parading as the liberating heroes.
After the War, two of their extended family were murdered, and her parents have become refugees outside of Iraq, as the country became to unsettled and dangerous for them.
The decision to take Australia to war, especially in the Iraq case where it was a illegal and the Australian people had spoken loud and clear by taking to the streets against it, should not have been taken by the cabinet dominated by one man. If it is to continue that way, then maybe members of the cabinet's should also spend the post invasion days with people such as my friend and see the consequences of their actions.
Probably Impractical
Sorry Scott, but I agree with the Government and Opposition, that having both houses of Parliament debate, send to committee, think about for a month or 2 (probably 6 months) before agreeing to sending Australian troops overseas would be impractical, if only from the time point of view.
Could you imagine if Australia (or each country) went through the process before sending servicemen to WW I, WW II, Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, there would be such a mess, that the conflict probably would have continued for twice the period it did / is. In addition to the increased costs of extended conflicts, we would have increased internal security costs to contend with. Just look at the costs of all the internal security monitoring and controlling of some local groups now by our internal security services (Federal and State). Extend the conflict over a larger time, and costs will escalate dramatically. So it is important to get into an country where we are committed to help by treaties, as soon as possible, and try to get out as soon as possible.
If by chance your proposed bill did succeed, then the Government of the day would have no choice but to proceed under the table to be able to comply with the long standing military treaties we have have signed.
The Government could possibly have to dramatically enlarge ASIO to the size of a small army, and send them in while Parliament scratches it bum before the regular forces are sent. Remember the early days of Vietnam. The US President sent the CIA (Air America etc.), and military advisers in to support Sth Vietnamese forces till US, Australian, NZ etc. forces went in.
As for Iraq, I agree we stuffed up, we should have continued the first time, and cleaned out the place, then we would not have had to go back again. We should have learnt from Korea, where we stopped at the 38th Parallel, when we should have cleaned up the North Koreans, and continued to the Chinese border. If we had finished the job, then the world would not have an out of control rogue country to deal with today. Hopefully with Afghanistan we remember the past and finish the job properly the first time.
Imperialism alive and well in the green movement?
Ah Grant my boy, spoken like a true imperialist. Personally I think it would have been an excellent result for Australia if the government of the day had been unable to gain parliamentary consent in time to get masses of our boys slaughtered along with the others in any of the wars that you quote. I do not believe that Australia gained anything from participation in other peoples' wars and that neutrality is invariably the best form of defence. Perhaps we could enshrine it in the constitution that the ADF lives true to its name and is only comitted to action in actual defence of Australia. Oh. and in case you haven't noticed, our federal government has already increased the size of ASIO to that of a small army as well as drastically increasing its powers.
Howard Gibson
Neutrality Does Not Exist
Sorry Howard by Neutrality for a country does not exist, especially in any major conflict.
If you look at WWII as the last major punch up, there was technically no neutral countries. Ah, I hear you say, what about Sweden and Switzerland (and the sometimes quoted Spain). Lets look at each of them.
a. Sweden only remained "neutral" as it was busy supplying all sides with raw materials, so was technically AC/DC, supported both sides of the punch up so neither side wanted to rock the boat by forcing them onto one side or the other. Like Spain, Sweden also provided an dialogue exchange point.
b. Switzerland on the other hand, financed both sides of the punch up so made millions of dollars through loans to both sides. In the case off Germany they accepted tons of Gold as security, and probably still has the yellow stuff.
c. Spain could never have been seen as technically neutral as Franco was put into power by the Germans through large amounts of military support. Spain did serve a purpose as it provided a country where the Governments of all sides technically were able to talk to each other.
There were a number of other "Neutral" (eg. Netherlands) countries, that the Germans just invaded anyway. Germany did not recognise neutrality, unless it was convenient for their Government. Japan, as far as I can remember did not recognise any country as neutral.
Do you seriously think Australia would have been safe if we were neutral during the 39 - 45 conflict. It is well documented that Japan was aiming for Australia no matter who we support. They needed the minerals / resources.
If you look at the current punch ups, how many Australians have been identified by our Intelligent Services (ASIO, ASIS, Federal Police, State Police Intelligence Units, Millitary Intelligency Units) as Muslim radicals wanting to cause trouble. Luckily most Muslim Communities in Australia dob the radical groups to our Intelligence Services before they can do much harm. Even if we were not committing service personnel to Iraq etc. these groups would still be causing large Government expences to monitor and lock up as required.
Sorry mate, for the past 50+ years Australia could never have survived any declared "neutrality" and will not into the future.
The "Japanese threat"
Your are, of course, entitled to your opinions but I must take you up on one point. You claim that it is "well documented" that Japan was out to invade Australia during the Pacific war. Really? I would say that the historic evidence is completely the opposite, that Australia was not on their list of objectives, it was an objective that they simply did not have the resources to attempt in any case, and Australia was not seen as a major source of raw materials in those times but as essentially an agricultural exporter.
As to your assertions re: Muslim groups I think that you need to look into your ideas on human nature a bit more deeply in an attempt to discover why you think these people are out to get us. If we are not seen as aggressors, and a threat to the Muslim world, then you must feel that these people have a somewhat different psyche to the inhabitants of the western world. Former President Bush seemed to be of this view, I am certainly not and am of the opinion that insofar as these people do hate us, it is with no shortage of reasons, and, "because of our freedoms" is not one of them.
Howard Gibson
Democracy
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Albert Einstein
“It is greed to do all the talking but not to want to listen at all”
Democritus
Which just about sums up the behaviours of the present and previous incumbents.
Maybe they will actually listen this time?
Libs/Labor object to this with good reason
If a vote of parliament is required to declare war, then a similar vote would have the power to cancel a war. This is undesirable, as it would make our ability to sustain a war significantly more fickle. There is enough secrecy and positive spin by our military about its military campaigns already, if all it took was a couple of backbenchers/crossbenchers to reverse their vote for the war to be cancelled, then the secrecy would be even stronger.
I know the Greens are a peace and non violence party, but I fail to see how advocating policies which make our ability to wage war more fickle is in Australia's or the Greens' interests. Reducing our ability to assist our allies, leads to reduced reliability that our allies will help us in a time of need, which in turn leads to Australia needing a larger military. Is that what the Greens really want?
Role of the Parliament
In Australia, the legislative body is the Parliament. The Constitution of Australia makes no mention of a 'Prime Minister', or even a 'Cabinet'. The Prime Minister only has executive authority to the extent that he/she has the support of the Parliament. It has always been the case that the Parliament may pass an act at any time instructing the defence forces to abandon a war. It would, of course, amount to a no confidence vote in the Prime Minister, if such a bill was passed against the Prime Minister's wishes.
The Prime Minister and Cabinet are conventions adopted under the Statute of Westminster, which is itself an Act of Parliament. The Prime Minister has no executive authority under the constitution. Any decision made by the Prime Minister must have been previously authorised by Parliament, otherwise the Prime Minister is only speaking on the provisional understanding that he/she commands a majority of the votes in the Parliament.
The only reason the Prime Minister can send the country to war without approval from the parliament is that the parliament has *already approved it*. Or at least, that is the way John Howard chose to interpret the Constitution and the Defence Act. The Commander in Chief of the Australian Defence Forces is the Governor-General, and neither the Constitution nor the Defence Act sets out any conditions for a declaration of war. Thus, the formal power of the Prime Minister to declare war resides in the convoluted sequence of instructing the Commander in Chief (Governor General). The Governor General could, conceivably, refuse this order, but is then subject to dismissal by the Queen. The way the Prime Minister comes into this is because the *convention* (not stated in the constitution, nor any parliamentary statute) is that the only person the Queen will take advice from on such a dismissal is the Prime Minister.
The power for a single person to take a country to war is very unusual. In the United States, for example, the President does NOT have authority to declare war, even though the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. In the USA, the constitution explicitly states that the power to declare war resides with the Parliament (Congress). The Congress authorised G.W. Bush to start the Iraq war via a bill passed months before the war started, authorising the President 'to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq'. Without such authority from Congress, the Iraq war would not have happened.
Although there is no formal requirement for the Australian Parliament to authorise a declaration of war, it is important to note that the Iraq war was the first time that Australia has gone to war without such a parliamentary authorisation. Typical of a conservative government to run rough-shod over the long-standing conventions of good governance!
In most countries, and practically all Western democracies, a parliamentary vote is required to go to war. Australia is in fact a rare and unfortunate exception.
In writing this reply, I came across this excellent talk by Professor George Williams, from a Radio National presentation "Who Declares War for Australia?". Well worth reading!
Wars
For some reason the above reminds me of the statement from the Vietnam era, "we had to destroy it in order to save it." Perhaps because it applies the same double-think type of warped logic. As a nation Australia is in the fortunate position of not having any natural enemies - except perhaps our own aboriginal population, we did invade them and steal their country after all. It is only when we ally ourselves with imperialist nations, originally Britain, and now the United States, that we incur enemies by association. Let us be perfectly clear about one thing; neither the US nor Great Britain came to Australia's aid in the 1939 - 1945 conflict. In point of fact Australia, had it remained neutral, was in no danger of invasion anyway, but the US was, as it always has and will continue to do so, pursuing perceived US interests, one of which was to make use of Australian territory as a base for their operations against Japan. For fair reasons or foul successive Australian governments have seen fit to regard the US as our saviour and used this as an excuse to join in every US imperialist adventure ever since. This places Australia in some degree of danger because, instead of being seen as a pearl democracy and freedom within our regoin, we are seen as being the "deputy sherrif" to successive US regimes, regimes which are viewed with great suspicion, if not outright hatred throughout the developing world. If John Howard had done what he should done in the wake of the September 11th. bombings, signed the condolences book and come home, Australia would be in a far more secure position today. But, of course, the federal government would not then have had the excuse to massively increase the size and powers of its secret police and to drastically cut back on our freedoms "in order to preserve them" - but that is where I started isn't it.
Howard Gibson
Quoting Rumsfeld
Ian, a very well written and argued response, you have my admiration. Sadly my initial piece lacked the same clarity. What I was attempting to say was .....
In the case where there is not bipartisan (or overwhelming support) for a war, then putting the proposition to a vote in parliament, and winning such a vote narrowly is a highly undesirable situation. Parliamentary support for the war would be fickle, as all it would take is for a couple of politicians to change their vote for the war to be cancelled. It has to do, in Rumsfeld speak, of known knowns and known unknowns - if you know that support is going to be weak, and you are going to do something regardless, then it is better (for those in government) that the slimness of the support is not converted from an unknown to a known by putting it to the vote. As a more recent example, it would have been better, leadership wise, for Abbott or Hockey to be selected as opposition leader without a vote, than to have a vote, and for everyone to know Abbott won with a margin of 1.
If there is no vote for the war, and if the parliament later upholds a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and the war is cancelled as a result, then so be it. This is a better outcome.
Howard, I mostly agree with what you have written, but you are viewing the situation with 20/20 hindsight. Governments should only be judged by the decisions they make with the information they have available at the time. After WWII successive Australian governments have believed that aligning ourselves with the USA is a safer bet to avoid invasion than remaining neutral. The lives, treasure, and independence we sacrifice to the global bully may have bought us nothing but new enemies, but, we haven't been invaded either.
We are a deputy sheriff, as sacrificing full independence in the sphere of foreign affairs is part of the premium that the Great Satan demands. I recall Australia parroting the USA on the rejection of a democratically elected Hamas government several years ago, I found this particularly hard to swallow, and I tried not to think of how many new enemies such an act would spawn.
I've enjoyed this debate and
I've enjoyed this debate and the spirit of the comments offered.
There were several objections raised by the Government and opposition, all of them touched on in some way in the comments above.
Parliamentary debate will move too slowly. The Government will have to release sensitive information into the public domain. A close vote will demoralise the troops. The line between war and peacekeeping can be dangerously ambiguous.
None of these arguments stack up when tested against the most recent deployments in the post second world war era. That might sound trite coming from a peace activist, but we heard it directly from a former defence secretary, a Brigadier, and a former senior diplomat. Even the Australian Defence Association offered qualified support.
All witnesses expressed the need for caution, the need to get the bill right to avoid unintentional consequences, and the care with which such decisions should be taken. But every one of them supported the underlying principle of parliamentary approval of the ADF into combat zones.
The transcript of our day's hearings is genuinely fascinating: in particular have a look at the testimony by Brigadier Adrian d'Hage and Paul Barrett.
Transcript here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fadt_ctte/dapaosb08/report/d01.htm
Sounds like a good bill Scott
Sounds like a good bill Scott - The current way of deciding on whether to go to war or not is undemocratic. Interestingly enough the vast majority of the public (70%) did not want to go to war without the permission of the UN. So much for democracy
Post new comment