When war criminals can daub canvasses in blithe safety, rake in millions of dollars in after dinner speeches and bore governments to death with their shoddy words of wisdom, the world is not so much as it should be, but merely as it is. Former US President George W. Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and tag along bore, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, remain at large, despite their respective countries wagging fingers of disapproval at authoritarian regimes for defying the rules-based international order. Never a more fitting trio in terms of abusing international law could you find.
In 2003, this culpable troika sneered, ignored and soiled such international institutions as the United Nations, the rule of law, the legacy of the Nuremberg trials, and a number of conventions, by invading Iraq. The country, weakened and crippled by years of sanctions, leaving its hospital system crushed with bulky lists of dead children (all worthwhile, according to the late former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright), was apparently a mortal threat to Western civilisation.
The Baathist regime, led by Saddam Hussein, was purportedly armed to the teeth with a doomsday inventory of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) that he was bound to use at any given moment against freedom loving types in Washington, London and Canberra. (It is true he had previously had such weapons, much of it supplied by Western arms corporations with the blessing of intelligence agencies such as the CIA.) He had, apparently, refused to disarm, obdurate in the face of United Nations weapons inspectors. And he had flirted with those evil representatives of cataclysmic eschatology, al-Qaida, despite being hostile to such millenarian groups. The report card, spottier than ever in the shadow of the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the United States, suggested that he had to go. The results: lusty sectarian violence, a catastrophically devastating, often imbecilic occupation by US-led forces, the seeds of emboldened fundamentalism, the offshoot movements such as Islamic State, and multigenerational trauma.
With another new year beckoning, the Australian National Archives have released approximately 240 cabinet papers from 2003 on the decision-making process behind a number of policy decisions. A few snippets are offered regarding road to war. Cabinet’s National Security Committee had kept an eye on developments in Iraq, though the released materials do little to reveal what, precisely, took place in conversations between Howard and Bush.
In September 2002, one document notes how “cabinet noted an oral report by the prime minister on his discussion with the president of the United States on the American position in relation to efforts by Iraq to secure and maintain weapons of mass destruction.” A fortnight later, the then-foreign minister Alexander Downer, is noted as furnishing cabinet with an “oral report” regarding “developments” regarding the proposed UN Security Council resolution on the Saddam regime’s “possession of, and attempts to secure or maintain, weapons of mass destruction, and on the prospects for passage of the resolution.” That such oral revelations were not accompanied by thick, detailed submissions, is telling about the obedient, inevitable train of thinking afflicting the Howard government. A war, started by Washington, would come, and Canberra would be along for the ride.
By March 2003, Howard was demanding action. He informed members of his cabinet that Bush had issued Saddam with an ultimatum of thuggish import. “Saddam Hussein and his sons,” the US president stated, “must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.”
Howard was drunk with intelligence assessments from the United States, including such claims that Iraq had put out feelers for yellowcake in Niger. Couple this with such stretched confections as non-state terrorist actors, hankering for WMD spoils from sponsor states, and the prime minister was swooning. In 2013, his cringeworthy apologia given to the Lowy Institute reflected on the fictitious Niger angle as “unmistakable” in its “strength”. Had it been accurate – a sly way of escaping the prosecutor’s legal brief – and Saddam “left in place, only to provide WMDs to a terrorist group, for use against the US, the Administration would have failed in its most basic responsibility to protect the nation.” When crooks of state are found out, they tend to cite public duty as appropriate justification.
As far as legality for any military intervention outside the formal channels of authorisation of a UN Security Council, Howard was armed with a memorandum signed by a first assistant secretary from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and his equivalent from the Attorney-General’s Department. Fantastically and irresponsibly, the cod ordinary advice suggested that Australian involvement in an invasion would be entirely legal, given the Saddam regime’s recalcitrance in not allegedly complying with previous Security Council resolutions. It seems that the public servants in question, instead of offering a panoramic view about the pitfalls of a dangerous adventure in the Middle East, were merely keen to satisfy the bloodletting urges of their political paymasters.
The cabinet minute from March 18, 2003 showed agreement from the Attorney-General with the spurious reasoning of the first assistant secretaries. It also noted that the Australian Governor-General, Peter Hollingworth, holder of that old office of the British empire as the monarch’s representative, had been consulted. Approval from him, however, was not mandatory.
Cabinet, won over with no evident demurral, and previously buttered up by oral reports, approved the measure to commit Australia to another failed military mission of murderous, bungling incompetence. The United States would receive no resistance in getting its pound of Australian flesh for an illegal enterprise, and the Australian public, many of whom had participated in some of the largest anti-war demonstrations the country had ever seen, would be ignored.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
you missed another juicy bit from the archives.
The libs wanted a CO2 trading scheme but Howard killed it. Howard talked to business leaders who didnt like it one bit.
Just shows how fucking concerned John Howard was/is about the climate change. Big business trumps whats good.
Howard was one lucky MF who rode the coat tails of a mineral boom. Australians are a dumb bunch of jerks when money is splashed around. But hey, look around, most of what is fucked in this country can be traced back to this era.
Free giveaways because he wanted to win elections. Planning for the future? Who Gives A Fuck. Good to see nothing has changed……lol
As for the war in Iraq, that is purely Howards own fucked up morals……he has non. As a backbencher Howard was as dumb as they come. As a PM, people lauded his political judgement. I for one found it totally repulsive that he managed to appeal to the “maga” crowd. About the same time i started to question my own sanity. When you see interviews with maga people in the usa, dont laugh out loud , we have them too. And thats who the libs still appeal to.
Uhm ….. I am reminded of a contemporary report that Howard was in Washington when the 9/11 attack occurred and offered Australia’s services to the USA (United States of Apartheid) without consulting the Australian Parliament. Shrubya accepted because Australian SAS Regiments were better trained than Americans and more professional soldiers. At the end of Shrubya’s reign (2008), Howard was awarded a US medal, the Star of Honour (?) reserved for politicians who betrayed their own country in the service of American armament manufacturers.
@andyfiftysix: Agreed. Howard was a three time failure for the leadership of the LIARBRAL$ before he did a dirty deal to displace Costello.
During my earlier years, I had read about John Howard having hired the Exclusive Brethren to deliver electioneering pamphlets
door to door in selected Eastern suburbs, those particular pamphlets went on to mislead the Australian people about the fidelity of the Howard Liberal party and later the Howard-led Lib/Nat coalition party.
In all my years that were witness to the lies dished out by Howard to the Australian people, now has me wonder how “Fibber” Howard had not been charged with the treachery against the Australian people had so frequently engaged in.
There is a powerful reason that the police investigatory documents relating to the Port Arthur Massacre had been locked away for a period of 75 years, that reason is that the Port Arthur Massacre had been given the green light as a false flag event by that bastard John Howard.
A special order for a 22 stretcher refrigerated truck had arrived in Tasmania before the non-complicit Martin Bryant was set up as the patsy to cop the blame for something he could not possibly have engaged in plotting such a huge slaughtering shooting spree.
Martin Bryant with his low IQ just could not have created such a mass killing event.
The tasked event had been given to the Tasmanian Special Operations Group.
I had read the three independent investigations by the well-informed others, none of the three individual authors of the referred to three separate investigation reports, held any reason to create falsehoods in their reports, the actual falsehoods came from the police reports themselves.
The State of Tasmania Police Force had relied on evidence documents that were favourably chosen by the Senior Police operatives back in that era, in order to support the Special Operations Group & their hired sniper to become its false presented investigatory final report.
Some 4 or so years ago, I reported my itemised valid report to the Office of our nation’s Office of Director General, the response given was that their role had consisted of protecting Australia’s current & former Prime Ministers.
Otherwise, piss-off, we have no interest in any claims that I further direct to their office.
The only reason I’m glad Howard is still alive is so he can witness this humiliation.
Mind you, I wouldn’t mind it if he wasn’t alive.
Hans Blix, UN weapons inspector, found no evidence of WMD and he blew the whistle on the US scare campaign* which was a necessary step towards the end goal of destroying human rights in the West. However, the media were thirsty for blood, doing their best imitation of howler monkeys on heat, flapping their arms and lips around, in what Shakespeare would have described as “tales told by idiots, full of sound and flurry, signifying nothing”. As if this was the end of the world if we didn’t get Hussain, the media beat themselves and the drums of war into a fluffy-topped frenzy and the rest is history. Howard was one dud amongst many, how many in the Liberal Party voiced a conscience vote opposing the war, and as for Labor, I don’t remember much push back from them either. It looks like as far back as 2003 democracy was dead in the water. What amuses is people thinking a new leader in a political party is going to change the system. The parties are broke, the system is broke. Anyway, admit it, Howard was an improvement on Menzies so things are moving in the right direction, be happy for small mercies 🙂
scare campaign*, seeded by a plan shown in YouTube video – ‘A 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Explained in 5 Minutes by James Corbett’
I recall two particular pieces of info from the period: 1) months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Howard had dispatch Australian Airforce bomber jets to Saudi Arabia. I had a distinctive feeling then that Howard had committed Australia to US-led war; and 2) Howard’s son was working in the Dubya White House Administration and ‘keeping dad informed’
Williambtm
You present a conspiracy in relation to Port Arthur. You need to present extremely strong evidence to support your comments.
Keith, I definitely concur with your comment.
Williambtm, fantasies are what they are and fantasies they will remain unless you can back it all up with empirical and verifiable data. Please, do not try and use the Pauline Hanson crap from 2019 (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/28/pauline-hanson-suggests-port-arthur-massacre-was-a-government-conspiracy), because virtually everything she says is utter garbage.
I’m with Keith and GL. Without question.
andyfiftysix, two comments. The minerals boom generated enormous revenues for the Howard government; most of it was pissed up against the wall with next to nothing positive to show for those massive fiscal resources.
And… John Howard’s vision for Australia was limited to the citizens being relaxed and comfortable, safely tucked into their beds in their little houses behind the white picket fences.
How such a myopic ingrate got to be at the helm of federal politics in the first place, and for as long as he did, is one of the enduring mysteries of Australian post-war social phenomena. If it ever happens again – and lettuce spray that it doesn’t – it will be to the eternal regret of all who call Australia home… or Austria, if your name happens to GW Bush.
Canguro, after the 2007 election I was at a talk by the economist Chris Richardson and he was very critical of Howard for wasting the $12B extra income (from taxes) from the resources boom (thanks to China) on middle-class welfare.
In other words, he spent the money on vote-buying.
“Maintain the rage.”
We do, against you, Little Johnny. Little Johnny and Janet, antecedents of Scotty and Jenny, and Turnbull and Abbott in between.
All from Toad Hall.
Canguro, (How such a myopic ingrate got to be at the helm of federal politics in the first place, and for as long as he did, is one of the enduring mysteries of Australian post-war social phenomena. If it ever happens again -).
But it has happened again, and again, we only have to look at Abbott and Morrison, and see that the liberal party has a habit of pushing their least able to the head of the table, I mean, they chose Dutton after they lost the 2022 election, and Ley as deputy, says it all really.
The liberal party since Fraser has not had a party leader who was worth wasting spitting on if he (and it is always a he) was on fire, and Fraser toed the liberal party line until it got so bad that even he could not stomach it.
And don’t talk about Turnbull, a man whose only aim in life was money and power. If the liberals have had a policy that they put into place that benefited the country, its future and its people, it has been well hidden.