The toll taken by corrupt practices

Nearly 40 years ago, long before we fully realised the level of…

Selective Maritime Rules: The United States, Diego Garcia…

There are few more righteous sights than the paunchy US Secretary of…

Marginalised workers short-changed in JobKeeper revamp, says ACTU

By William Olson  The Morrison government responded to public pressure on Friday to…

Foiled at Toronto: The Tiger Squad’s Canadian Outing

Silencing Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul was a feat of primeval…

COVID-19: Where was it born: China, the United…

Continued from: COVID-19: Where was it born: China, the United States or…

Seeking the Post-COVID Sunshine: No More Exemptions for…

By Denis Bright  Authorities at state and federal levels have been less than…

Busy, Busy, Busy !

It was another busy morning at the Trump White House. Morning tweets…

Death From the Sky: Hiroshima and Normalised Atrocities

When US President Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop the…

«
»
Facebook

Vulgar Militarism: Expanding the Australian War Memorial

It was a decision both rash and indulgent. In November 2018, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, after being nudged incessantly by then Australian War Memorial director Brendan Nelson, committed to a redevelopment project intended to double the exhibition space in Campbell. The amount for the project would be just shy of a half-billion dollars and would be, Nelson claimed with eye-brow raising plausibility, an exercise of therapy for veterans and their families “coming to terms with what they’ve done for us and the impact [war] has had on them.”

Voices in opposition grew, many not exactly fitting the description of pinko defeatist types. Former Department of Defence secretary Paul Barrett, author Thomas Keneally and eighty-one others appended their signatures to an open letter claiming that the Memorial was “being given preference over other national institutions, and the money could be better spent.” Nelson’s aims of giving more prominence to supposedly “forgotten” conflicts while fostering a program of healing veterans were questionable aims: the former had to be seen in terms of proportionality and perspective; the latter was the purview of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs. $350 million had already been disgorged on the occasion of the Anzac Centenary and the Sir John Monash Centre in France. “Should further money be spent on these extensions rather than on other needy cultural institutions or direct benefits to veterans and their families?”

On one level, the Memorial expansion project was merely typical of the sorts of fripperies wars encourage. Commemorations and building programs reflecting on the effects of war often have the unintended effect of glorifying the very thing they are meant to eschew. To the victor go the spoils and the celebrations. Besides, good narratives to justify killing or being killed are always needed.

Australians generally do not regard themselves as warlike, yet their leaders have deployed them in every major conflict since the late nineteenth century. Such decisions have often been as emotive as they have been strategic, the former often taking precedence over the latter. A survey of these engagements reveal the shedding of blood across virtually every continent on the planet. Be it Britannia or the US imperium, Australian soldiers will do the bidding of others, and happily so. Resentment, much as that shown to the Australian War Memorial redevelopment, will be dismissed as the ranting of “special interest groups”, traitors or closet fifth columnists.

Before the Parliamentary standing committee on public works on July 14, the egg heads were particularly testy, with the testiness taking various forms. Former memorial directors Brendon Kelson and Major General Steve Gower both felt slighted at having been left off the drinks list. That did not stop Kelson from making the point that the expansion was distinctly vulgar. “The Australian War Memorial is a poignant tribute to those who died on, or as a result, of active service in the nation’s wars.” The AWM was “dedicated to their commemoration and a place to pause and reflect on the costs of war, a national icon, unique among the world’s great monuments.”

It did not take long for the narrative of the coronavirus to find its way into the hearings. It seeps, cloys and will out. Former AWM principal historian Peter Stanley found Nelson’s argument on expanding the memorial in the name of healing as almost laughable, “the museum equivalent … of hydroxychloroquine.” There had been “no demonstrable therapeutic benefit in traumatised veterans visiting a display of their former weapons vehicles or aircraft.” Such an argument supplied a “meretricious” attraction, but was unsustainable given the findings of clinical studies.

The medical opposition was also shored up by Margaret Beavis, secretary of the Medical Association for Prevention of War. The literature on veterans’ mental illness had “no reference to memorial-based therapy.” The notion of such healing derived “from wishful thinking” and untested anecdotes.

Architect and town planner Roger Pegrum had concerns about the way the expansion was going to be implemented in terms of structural and symbolic integrity. The character of the building would be affected by the bombastic nature of the project. The memorial was merely meant to be a “simple statement of sacrifice and valour” intended to house small objects to best understand why Australians served in conflict. “If built as drawn, it is an irreversible and complete change to the memorial”.

The current AWM director Matt Anderson tried to buck the trend in the specialist literature on trauma and healing using a technique politicians are often receptive to: the scientifically untested anecdote. He had been “told by veterans and their clinicians” that such acts as signing the Tarin Kowt wall for Australians who had served in Afghanistan had “positive mental health benefits.” Susan Neuhaus, a longstanding member of the AWM council, similarly voiced the therapeutic line. She suggested the need for larger displays, illuminating other areas of conflict Australians had perished in. There was still, she argued, a “fracture line separating the worthy dead and the unworthy dead.”

The Australian War Memorial Council chair, Kerry Stokes, was characteristically dismissive. Expanding war memorials was exactly what those involved in war memorials ought to do. If the public want to see weapons, let them. Stokes also sniffed the sort of hypocrisy that accretes over time. “Only after the final designs came out did the special interest groups seem to gather their momentum.” Most of them, in any case, were based in Canberra; most Australians seemed to relish the prospect of war as glory. “The number of people who claim not to have been involved is very small.”

Stokes may have a point. War, packed with its uniforms and lethal toys, is vulgar. This project, should it be envisaged in the form Nelson intended it, promises to be the most vulgar of all. Commemorative solemnity has its role, but Australia’s ruling classes have little intention to pause and reflect about the losses the country has either endured or inflicted over the short existence of the Commonwealth. With money being poured into a delusionary defence budget to fight fictional enemies, the distasteful cinematic joke of healing veterans by reminding them of their weapons of death and destruction seems aptly grotesque.

 

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!

Donate Button

10 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Ian Hughes

    The money for this should be spent on the health and wellbeing of veterans and their families. Simple.

  2. Josephus

    In their visitors book I wrote, what about the Frontier Wars? Nations defending their land against invasions. Hypocrisy, racism. For shame.

  3. Phil

    ‘ In their visitors book I wrote, what about the Frontier Wars? Nations defending their land against invasions. Hypocrisy, racism. For shame.’

    Amen to that.

  4. Ken

    This is another example of a complete waste of money by the current government.

  5. jamie

    Oh yeah the Brendan Frankenstein Stranglove Nelson death merchant bunker freak. A lickspittle pawn of the world’s #1 merchant of terror and death USA’s Lockheed. Other Nelson corporate death terror merchants include BAE Systems, supplier of death machines for the Saudi slaughter of Yemen, and Boeing.

    Nelson’s war glorification nightmare bunker will include tanks, jet fighters, armoured carriers, helicopters etc.

    And of course war glorification freak Nelson never served in the ADF.

    A friggin freak armchair war glorification coward!!!

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/should-arms-dealers-really-be-funding-the-australian-war-memorial-20180608-p4zkch.html#comments

    https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/why-are-weapons-makers-sponsoring-the-national-war-memorial/9788666

  6. Kathy

    Not at all surprised by this horrendous, wasteful decision by MorriScum ….the LNP have ALWAYS prioritised war over the needs of Australian citizens! The LNP scream poor but they ALWAYS find funds to expend countless BILLIONS on armoured cars, war and weapons of war. WHY? Because the war-mongering LNP have always thrived on division, fear, conflict and hate going back to their obscene conservative roots in the war-mongering Protectionist Party, the forerunner to the LNP.

    “All the way with LBJ” sycophant and the reason we got involved in the pointless Vietnam War = Harold Holt; the pathological liar and notorious war criminal responsible for the staggering waste and crimes committed by our SAS in the protracted Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria conflict = John Howard; the xenophobic obsequious imperialist, Tony Abbott who expended countless millions on ridiculous superseded submarines and armoured cars to pander to his overblown sense of importance and, now, the obscenely wasteful, callously inhumane Morrison and this billion-dollar folly with the War Memorial at a time when so many Australians are losing jobs or financially vulnerable during this awful Covid-19 pandemic – PROOF that the LNP have a long, depraved history of using war and conflict as a means to attain and maintain autocratic power through fear and hate.

    The LNP have a long, long history of cheering on distractionary wars that – they believe – will take our attention away from the LNP’s unspeakable level of waste, ineptitude, callous disregard for ordinary working- and middle-class Australians and the way they are defunding and selling off EVERYTHING we love into oblivion including our children’s education, our taxpayer owned ABC, Medicare, hospitals and utilities!

  7. Andrew Smith

    Very expensive, indeed profligate, part of nativist conservative PR and presentation that is quite popular in less developed democracies and societies; nationalism along with religion and autocracy. The need to project military authoritarianism to society and their own, in most cases by individuals whom were never in the military, let alone served anywhere in support of the ‘nation’ or the ‘White House’.

    Conservatives over the decades have adopted and promoted (to the electorate with help of US GOP style pollsters/strategies) such a narrow shallow band of Anglo (& Irish) Australian cultural and other icons they are doomed to obscurity unless investment is made in enforced memory for nostalgia, they hope…

    The iconography includes Australia remaining a monarchy, English only, restrict immigration pre 1980s types, limited trade only links with Asia, Brexit, Trump, ANZACs, AFL/NRL/cricket, Christianity, Captain Cook, the flag, indigenous would assimilate (and fade away), any industry requiring hard hats/fluoro vests (construction, mining etc.), be manipulated by (mostly US/UK) global corporates and 19th century libertarianism.

  8. andy56

    The war memorial is big enough already, been there recently. It was not so somber as i expected, more a disney land of used weapons. I also went to the war memorial in Ho Chi Min city (saigon). Smallish building and i left after 20min. It was a powerful reminder of the horrors of war. The veterans need support now, not a freak show to visit. If the recent figures are correct, 50% of returned service people are suffering some form of post trauma. I would imagine $500m would go a long way. How much did we spend on facilities at gallipoly? More wasted money on glorifying a defeat. How do you stop wars? dont go in the first place. Irag, afganistan , vietnam come to mind.

  9. PVW

    If only it had an annex for the homeless veterans.

  10. New England Cocky

    As above, this funding would be better spent on Returned Service housing and health services. Remember that Vietnam Veterans were denied proper medical treatment for PTSD and associated military action mental health matters. Now there is the new generation of returned service personnel from the imperialistic excursions into Iraq and Afghanistan to secure oil deposits for foreign owned multinational, principally US, oil corporations.

    Rather than glorify our too many jaunts into militarism to satisfy the too many COALition politicians who did not serve in uniform, or in action in the field, it is time to redress the long standing government neglect of retired service personnel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: