 |
|
Howard under fire for supporting U.S. war against Iraq
|
PERTH,
Australia, October 28 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - Two
Australian warships left their homeport here Monday, October 28, to
join the multinational contingent enforcing sanctions on Iraq, as
Washington kept up the pressure for possible military strikes on
Baghdad.
The
vessels will replace two other frigates, the Melbourne and Arunta, in
the fourth rotation of Australian navy ship to the Gulf following the
start of multinational monitoring of sea trade with Iraq last year.
A
crowd of more than 400 people were on hand to see the frigates HMAS
Anzac and HMAS Darwin head off for what the military described as a
mission with "the international coalition against
terrorism".
The
Multinational Interception Force is tasked with inspecting merchant
traffic transiting in and out of Iraq in accordance with U.N.
sanctions against Baghdad.
But
the Australian warships could also find themselves in a U.S.-led
military offensive if Baghdad refuses to meet Washington's conditions
for revealing and destroying its alleged stockpile of weapons of mass
destruction.
Australia's
conservative government has indicated it would join any U.S.-led
strikes on Iraq, although Prime Minister John Howard reiterated at the
weekend that he preferred a diplomatic solution to the standoff.
Australian
newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald quoted Howard as saying that the
success of anti-terrorist efforts would depend solely on the ability
of individual countries to tackle terrorism within their boundaries.
In
September, the Australian government came under fire after dismissing
its top defense official without explanation.
Defense
department secretary Allan Hawke was sacked after three years in the
job, and was replaced by Australia's current ambassador to Indonesia,
Ric Smith, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.
In
August 1999 Paul Barratt was sacked just as Australia prepared to send
troops to halt bloodshed in East Timor.
The
latest dismissal sparked immediate criticism that it could once again
destabilize the department at a critical moment.
"This
is a government that has seen two heads of defense sacked, one when we
were just about to go into Timor and the other when we're considering
what action [to take] in relation to Iraq," said Simon Crean,
head of the main opposition Labor Party.
The
government gave no reason for its decision, announced when Howard was
in Britain discussing moves towards possible military strikes against
Iraq with British leaders.
After
the Bali attacks in Indonesia in which 180 Australians were killed,
the Herald said that Australia's limited resources will force Howard
to choose between backing Iraq or on improving home defense.
"Voices
have also urged caution about committing Australian forces to another
Middle East war, including former Office of National Assessments
analyst Hugh White, who argued in these pages yesterday that 'we
should be especially careful about committing resources to operations
far from here - no matter how worthwhile they might be - if we might
need out forces closer to home'".
"Our
core interest now lies in adopting policies and strategies that
minimize the chances that more Australians are killed in terrorist
violence.
"The
U.S. Administration may not like it, but that means a new war in Iraq
is not a high priority for Australia. Our Government should be saying
so, and allocating resources accordingly," said the paper in an
editorial.
In
the Canberra Times Monday, October 28, Crean said that he was
unconvinced Australia should support the U.S. in unilateral action
against Iraq.
Australian
troops in Afghanistan should be brought home to meet the increased
regional threat after the Bali bombings rather than be sent to Iraq,
the Times said.
In
another editorial, the paper accused Howard's Government of not taking
responsibility for the loss of innocent life after the Bali bombings.
"The
Prime Minister sees it as an almost random event arising out of
‘indiscriminate’ behavior by terrorists, not as an outcome of the
Government's own behavior," said the paper.
No
explanation, the paper said, of what the enemy stood for was provided
(except "evil" and such), nor why the enemy's goals were
judged so unreasonable that war was the only course for Australia, the
Times added.
"If
Israel's war with Palestinians is the central political aim of the
enemy we are fighting, why has this issue not been addressed?
"Does
the Prime Minister suffer the same political bondage on the
Israel-Palestine issue as U.S. politicians? If so, we can expect scant
regard for the truth from the Government on this war. If not, then the
explanation for avoiding the central issue is that the Government has
judged it to be in Australia's interests to do so," the paper
said.
On
October 19, the head of Australia's Anglican Church sparked official
anger after suggesting the government's staunch support for U.S.
foreign policy had prompted the deadly bombing of Australians in Bali.
Addressing
the annual synod of the Anglican Diocese in the western city of Perth
late Friday, October 18, Archbishop Peter Carnley said it was only a
matter of time before Australian lives were lost due to the
government's policy, AFP reported.
"Given
the bombing of Afghanistan and the dispersal in disarray of Al-Qaeda
and Taliban forces, and Australia's high profile support of President
George Bush's stance in relation to a possible war on Iraq, it was
surely only a matter of time before Australian lives were sacrificed
in some form of retaliatory action," Carnley said.
On
the day following the Bali attack, Robert Fisk, writer for the British
newspaper, the Independent, criticized the general reluctance to
discuss the motives behind the bomb blasts in the Indonesian tourist
island, Bali, which killed at least 187 people and wounded 309, mostly
foreigners.
“Everyone
wanted to know who had planted the bombs,” but no one “wanted to
talk about motives,” said Fisk.
“‘Terrorism’
was the all-important word [an accurate one too], which was used to
smother any discussion about what lay behind the crime,” he said.
Fisk
added that since Australia lined up to join the “war on terror”
and since John Howard has been among President Bush’s toughest
supporters, Australians were the principal victims of the blast.
“Australian
special forces have been operating with American troops in the Afghan
mountains against Al-Qa'eda. It's a fair bet that yesterday's savagery
was Al-Qa'eda hitting back.
“The
French have already paid a price for their initial support for Mr
Bush. The killing of 11 French submarine technicians in Karachi has
been followed by the suicide attack on the French oil tanker Limburg
off the coast of Yemen. Now, it seems, it is the turn of Australia,”
Fisk said.
“The
victims were largely young civilians, just as innocent as the
thousands who died in the World Trade Center. Civilians get no quarter
in this war, whether they are investment brokers in New York, Afghan
families or Australian honeymooners.”
Fisk
concluded his article by posing the question “Who’s next? When is
it Britain’s turn?”
“Our
support for the United States – an infinitely closer alliance than
any support from France – makes Britain the most likely candidate
for attack after the U.S.,” he said.
