Few Australians keen on Iraqi war

S.P. Seth, Freelance Writer, Sydney, SushilPSeth@aol.com

There are no surprises in Canberra's decision to forward- deploy some of its troops for an anticipated U.S. invasion of Iraq. Prime Minister John Howard bid farewell to elements of this force only the other day. In the larger U.S. scheme of things, though, Canberra's military contribution is largely symbolic.

Its contribution of a 2,000-strong force is quite small compared to the 30,000 British contingent. Britain and Australia are the only countries so far to become part of the "coalition of the willing", which U.S. is marshaling. No wonder, even Australia's symbolic commitment is politically so important to Washington.

But, as in Tony Blair's Britain, so too in Australia's case, Howard's government is swimming against the tide of popular opinion on this issue. According to opinion polls here, most people are against Australia's military involvement without UN approval.

Since being first elected in 1996, Howard has managed to stay in power by tapping into his people's deep-rooted prejudices on race, and a general sense of insecurity. The Iraq issue similarly seemed tailor-made for popular consumption, especially when it was linked with terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy. The subsequent Bali massacre, with nearly 90 Australians killed, only reinforced the terrorist danger.

It is therefore puzzling that the Australians are not keen to jump on the U.S. military bandwagon. This is so because neither Washington nor Canberra has been able to establish a link between the Baghdad regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network. Hence, the Iraq issue is a diversionary exercise.

Even the much-trumpeted issue of weapons of mass destruction is a red herring. It is meant to achieve America's strategic objectives in the region (controlling oil resources, and redrawing the Middle East political and strategic map), and to boost Bush presidency's second term prospects.

There is, therefore, a severe credibility problem. The Australians, like people elsewhere, refuse to be conned into mindless military involvement, without even the semblance of legitimacy from the United Nations. People are simply confused. Iraq seems too far away, and without the necessary means, to threaten Australia's security.

For Howard's government, though, following the leader (United States) is an insurance premium for future contingencies. It is in the same league as his self-styled role to act as America's "deputy sheriff" in the region. And as dangerously mindless as his "preemptive" policy to hunt out terrorists in neighboring countries.

It is true that Australia has, in the past, supinely followed the U.S. In Vietnam, for instance, Australia's policy of "all the way with LBJ" (President Lyndon B. Johnson) was a popular cause to begin with, though it turned sour from the late 1960s.

So what makes the Australians so squeamish on Iraq? The simple answer would be that they fear becoming the unwitting target of a wave of terror attacks that might follow military operations against Iraq. And they are understandably not keen on it.

As a result, the Howard government is unable to tap into and turn on the people's racial and xenophobic prejudices. Iraq is, therefore, becoming a divisive issue in national politics. The opposition Labor Party now has an issue to effectively differentiate from the Government on the Iraqi question.

Earlier, their policies seemed a carbon copy of the ruling conservative coalition on a whole range of issues. No wonder, the electorate preferred the original to the copy. But on Iraq, the Labor Party is pressing home its advantage over the Government's unpopular hawkish position.

It must be emphasized, though, that the opposition Labor Party too attaches the utmost importance to Australia's U.S. alliance. Equally, they are not enamored of Saddam Hussein. But would like his ouster (if that were necessary) through UN approval. According to Labor leader Simon Crean, "I believe that it's fundamentally important in this complex world that more and more we've got to resolve these issues (like Iraq) through the United Nations collectively."

In bidding farewell to Australian troops as opposition leader, he didn't mince his words when he told them, "I don't believe that you should be going. I don't think there should be a deployment of troops to Iraq ahead of the UN determining it." He added, "But that is a political decision; that's an argument that the Prime Minister and I will have, no doubt, over the coming weeks and months."

In other words, the Howard government's forward deployment of its troops is shaping into a divisive political debate in Australia. The Labor Party is taking this opportunity to sharply define and differentiate its foreign policy.

In a signed newspaper article, its foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, said, "Labor's national security policy is constructed on three pillars: first, our alliance with the U.S.; second, our membership of the UN and, third, our policy of comprehensive engagement with Asia."

He went on to argue: "By contrast, the national security policy of the Liberal Party is constructed on a single pillar -- the U.S. alliance. This basic difference shapes the growing gap between Labor and the coalition (Government) over Iraq."

Australia, of course, is only a bit player in the Iraqi drama, where America calls the shots. But it will be interesting to see how this debate will impact on its national polity, and become part of a worldwide movement against American unilateralism with Iraq as its immediate focus.