The Guardian has an article about international reaction to the execution of Saddam Hussein. It opens with a predictable remark from GWB about this being a “milestone” on the course to democracy. Then an equivocating comment from the British Foreign Secretary, having a bet each way on the subject of capital punishment. A stronger position is taken by the Vatican, warning that the execution could feed the “spirit of vengeance” and lead to even more violence.
Finally, the Australian prime minister (I can’t bring myself to use the word “our” about him) has his say. He believes that “there is something quite heroic about a country that is going through the pain and the suffering that Iraq is going through, yet still extends due process to somebody who was a tyrant and brutal suppressor and murderer of his people.
That is the mark of a country that is trying against fearful odds to embrace democracy.”
He believes that capital punishment as a direct result of what he calls “due process” is quite “heroic”? He believes that a process which leads to an execution is “the mark” of a country embracing democracy?
Howard is the elected prime minister of a country – a democracy – which has rejected capital punishment. Yet unlike the British, he doesn’t even have the principles to state a mild mannered objection to capital punishment on the international stage. Howard clearly never thinks he needs to represent Australian opinion as represented in the laws of this country. He only represents his own reactionary political opinions and those of his party and narrow sectional interests. It infuriates me that he makes statements like this as though he speaks for Australia as a whole. How dare he?
Suz, I’m glad you’ve posted about this. I was so startled by his use of the phrase ‘due process’ and the odd syntax of the sentence he used it in that I wondered for a moment whether he actually knew what it meant.
(I’m sure he does really — though he is still clearly in the dark about what postmodernism is.)
Howard sings from the same songbook as Bush.
A song about hanging and democracy that none but the most disturbed can understand.
Sadly, I’ve heard the tune before and while not surprised, cringe when our little dictator deems to warble for all Australians.
Alexander Downer has already spoken of the Australian Government’s reservations about capital punishment in his statement.
This isn’t about the political motives behind who’s saying what, but about real justice for 148 savagely and wantonly murdered villagers and their families, whose lives were changed without any kind of justice at all. How many deaths do you consider necessary before the death penalty becomes a just punishment? Apart from these murders, for which Saddam was found guilty by an Iraqi court in Iraq for Iraqi crimes under Iraqi law, the late Saddam is being tried for systematic genocide of Kurds – over 100,000 of them.
I’m all for mercy, and maybe capital punishment even for the murder, however heinous, of a single person could be considered pubnishable by a life sentence, but where do we draw the line between crimes of passion, premeditation or perversion which result in the deaths of one or two people, and the systematic, evil, despotic destruction of the lives and livelihoods of hundreds or even thousands of defenseless people? Under our justice system, Saddam could only have received a life sentence or two, and still have been able to spout defiance from his cell, organised insurgents, written a best selling biography and even been interviewed by 60 Minutes or a Current Affair for a fat fee. This way Iraqis know that he is no longer a threat, a voice or an entity.
Well, I bet I know what Jesus would say. FaceLift, this from you? I am shocked.
You reckon? Does the word ‘martyr’ mean anything to you?
Jesus would say that we’re all subject to the civil authorities and that the civil punishment will fit the civil crime. Capital punishment for murder was the norm when he walked the earth. It was a deterent to murder as well as a punishment for those who murdered. The Iraqi system still hangs people for murder. that iss their justice system and all Iraqis, including Saddam are subject to it. he probably had a similar system.
We can all forgive our enemies, as we should, but they/we are still subject to law, civil or spiritual. I agree with our laws, and wouldn’t encourage the death penalty. But where do we draw the line when it comes to this degree of wanton killing?
Saddam is an insult to word ‘martyr’, but, of course, there will be supporters who will use this as an excuse to continue his regime through roadside bombings, murder in the marketplaces and by systematic kidnappings and assassinations. But they would have done it anyway because that is the nature of his regime. However, they won’t be controlled by him any longer, will they?
“Howard is the elected prime minister of a country – …..It infuriates me that he makes statements like this as though he speaks for Australia as a whole. How dare he?”
I think you answered your own question there, suz.
Due process is a complete joke. Lawyers killed, judges sacked, etc etc.
Sorry, FaceLift, but what Dr Cat said.
Jesus himself was subjected to capital punishment through a “legal process”.
At least Pope Benedict is consistent in opposing the death penalty while condemning what JP2 called “a culture of death”.
Personally I’ve never been able to understand it. If someone did something egregiously hurtful to anyone I loved, I’d want them to be alive under conditions that deprive them of their freedom as long as possible to make them reflect on their actions. The “martyrdom temptation” was obviously one Saddam relished (he obviously scorned the Fourth Tempter that Thomas a Becket was surprised to see in Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral.)
I don’t think we can compare this with a murder trial, say, like the Falcanio case. Saddam is a mass murderer who is completely unremorseful and unrepentant about his actions and would clearly continue in the same vien if allowed, and went to hiss death encouraging insurgents to continue the murders.
As I have said, I don’t personally condone capital punishment, but Saddam has been tried according to the justice system of another land where the penalty for his crimes is death by hanging, and has met with the consequences of his actions. On this basis John Howard’s comments are appropriate, especially since the Foreign Minister has already outlined the Government’s stance on capital punishment, which is in line with other nations which have abolished capital punishment.
Good riddance to Saddam I say. But I think we need to remember, Facelift, what this presages for the Iraqi justice system in general.
If Saddam’s trial is going to be the standard, what hope is there for any of those people indiscriminately arrested and plonked in Abu Grahib ever receiving a fair trial, particularly if, as it seems, death sentences will be fluttering about like confetti?
Howard can’t even think of anything remotely original to say til he’s gone to Google news to find out what Bush said.
Well, I can’t see that everyone has been given the death sentence, CK. This was always going to be the most difficult case. I think they wanted it over and done with so they could begin to work on nation building. With Saddam as a threat no one in Iraq could feel secure. As it is it will be some time before Iraq can hope to settle into normality, but I have a problem with some commenters around the blocks who seem to think it would have been better to have let Saddam have some kind of influence in the region. One BBC commentator even thinks Saddam should have been negotiating with insurgents to bring peace, and others like Robert Fisk believe Bush and Blair are responsible for Saddam’s actions! No condemnation of his actions, as if he was an innocent party, or even commentary on the verdict as predictable under Iraqi law, just an assault on the Coallition leaders.
Give Iraq time to push through the difficulties, change, adapt and develop as an emerging nation.
FaceLift, if we’re going to stick to pragmatism, as Mark argued in his post, the execution of Saddam before any charges against him (in particular that of genocide against the Kurds) had been heard except for the murder of Shi’ite villagers, is the absolute last thing in the world that’s going to contribute to “nation building”. In case you hadn’t noticed, most “ordinary Iraqis” who aren’t involved in organised violence are basically afraid to walk outside their front door. And “nation building” – no guarenteed water supply, a couple of hours’ power a day, 50-60% unemployment, etc, etc.
Thanks, Kim. I didn’t realise I needed to spell it out.
I’m surprised to see how many people don’t seem able to separate opposition to the death penalty per se from the heinousness of the criminal. They are two completely separate questions.
FaceLift, in answer to your question ‘Where do you draw the line?’ I am tempted to reply ‘At the start of the slippery slope, of course’ but the real answer is, it seems to me, quite clear: you do not draw the line. There is no line. Killing another person legally, deliberately and in cold blood, no matter what the reasons, shames and diminishes everyone involved. If Saddam himself did this repeatedly, then it is all the more important that his self-styled superiors should avoid the kind of behaviour they are condemning.
It’s entertaining and yet somehow incredibly depressing, FL, to watch you bend the truthiness any way you want in order to make all your Christianity lemons line up with all your Support John Howard lemons. It is also wildly unconvincing.
Well, I’m convinced, PC! I didn’t realise that little old me’s opinion had the effect of entertainingly depressing a cool cat like you! I didn’t mean to, honest!
Where have I bent truthiness? I think you introduced the ‘Christian’ perspective on this, actually, and made yourself the first to attempt to give Jesus’ position on the case. I don’t think he had a problem with following civil law, actually. “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and unto God that which is His’. Jesus was known to be innocent when sent to face the Sanhedrin. He was falsely accused. he chose not to defend himself, knowing he was set to die. He was tried by mob, not by a court, incidentally. The Sanhedrin sent him to Herod. Herod sent him to Pilate. Pilate washed his hands of the decision, remember, and asked the mob to choose between the freedom of Jesus or Barabas. The mob chose Barabas. Some justice! Some court!
Saddam broke every human law and convention going. He was tried and found wanting by a legal court.
Actually, with judges being replaced by the Iraqi government because they weren’t toeing the line, it was pretty much the same sort of shambles, FaceLift.
I’m with Pope Benedict – no to the death penalty under any circumstances whatsoever.
suz says:
Howard was praising the trial of Hussein, a form of accountablity, under conditions of civil war. Capital punishment was a by product of due process.
Capital punishment is approved by a majority of Iraqis. In fact CP is probably practised by a majority of Iraqis. It is not a betrayal of democracy for Howard to commend a country for institutionally practising what it preaches.
Stop being emotional and start being rational.
By the way, in belated answer to Rob. When suz wrote:
What she is obviously getting at is that Australia has a position on the death penalty which is enshrined in law, and that the Prime Minister’s personal or partisan interest is beside the point. He is obliged to argue the position that Australia has taken, or seek to change our law accordingly. Rob evidently misunderstands liberal democracy. The PM for the time being is not some supreme being but insofar as he speaks in international fora on behalf of this country a representative who is bound to put the position which is congruent with the laws of Australia. Governments are not elected to do exactly whatever they like, but are bound by the settled law. That’s liberal democracy – with checks and balances and protections for minorities too – we do not and should not regard our leaders for the time being as elected dictators and we shouldn’t be complacent when they act like they are.
I think Barry Goldwater said that.
Stop being condescending.
Kim, I think you’re pushing that a little but it’s too late in the night to respond and I will get back to you, OK?
Howard is the elected prime minister of a country – a democracy – which has rejected capital punishment.
I don’t remember it ever being put to a vote.
Pavlov’s Cat:
It’s a word that frightens me – because now, thanks to America’s stupid and spiteful rulers, the name of Saddam Hussein will be a rallying point for millions over the centuries. Regardless of the monsterous crimes he committed and of his appalling greed and waste, he is now enshrined as the greatest Arab hero ever.
Suz:
Howard is only a Prime Minister so why are we letting him get away with pretending to be a President-For-Life? He … does … not … speak … for … me !!!!!!
Any Americams reading this:
After this suicidal blunder, I urge all decent Americans to sack Bush right now. Don’t mess around with impeachments – just sack him …. and replace him with a real President. And sack Cheney and his fellow “surrender monkeys” too; the lives of good Americans depend on getting rid of them before it is too late.
As our legal system has evolved, the use of capital punishment has been removed from the statutory books. Australia has not executed one of its citizens since Ryan in 1967 (whose guilt is still being debated). This reflects the manner in which the judicial system is both a codifier of social mores and repository of civil responsibilities. To vote on the death penalty would breech that fundamental principle in the Westminister system concerning the division of powers.
And in a political environment were law & order issues are manipulated by competing political parties, such a vote would not result in good governance but unleash a notion of justice that we have worked through and rejected.
Howard has consistently trotted down a fence line of the each way bet over this issue. Nguyen Tuong Van’s execution in 2005 in Singapore was appallingly handled by the Fed Government, probably as much due to incompetence in Dfat, but certainly there were measures that could have been taken at PM or ministerial level that may have prevented the killing but certainly would have clearly indicated Australia’s principled opposition to the use of the death penalty in any juridiction. The ambivalence appears again concerning the Bali Nine. Their guilt is not debatable but the actions of the AFP in providing information that led to their arrests on Indonesian soil rather than upon their return to Australia, ensured that at least some of them would face the death penalty upon conviction.
These are not the acts of a government with a principled position on the death penalty (& given our current military enmeshment with the US, undoubtedly as a very problematic position – bear in mind that “in 2005, 94 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA.” [link]
60 of which were in the USA). Howard does not speak for Australia regarding Saddams execution, he speaks to a political reality born of an ill-conceived, poorly managed military adventure that is more likely to harm our democracy than bring forth the flowering of such in Iraq.
Executing Saddam Hussein, murderous dictator, will not destroy the Ba’ath opposition, will not diminish Syrian or Iranian meddling, will not see water run from one more tap, one more child able to go to school, or for civil order to come one step closer. It merely shows a judicial system functioning so poorly, state sanctioned murder is its only option. Howard’s statements are an insult to whatever democratic hopes the Iraqis may have – force will win, expediency is truth, denial is freedom.
Thanks for this post Suz. I was also struck by Howard’s choice of words and his complete (and deliberate) misuse of the term ‘due process’.
To me there are two separate issues here. First, the trial was a sham and, as such, the verdict that it produced was suspect and without legitimacy. Second, capital punishment is always wrong – as PC says it ’shames and diminishes everyone involved’.
Arguing that either of these principles should be flexible at the extreme edge – that we should be able to fudge due process or carry out the death penalty when someone is “truly heinous” – is nonsense. It is precisely at these edges that our principles are tested and now Iraq has failed on both counts. Yesterday was a truly sad day for democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Iraq – and it reflects badly on all of those countries who are “helping” it to create a new future.
Great comment Bernice!
Howard’s comments about capital punishment bring tears to my eyes, real tears not crocodiles tears. I had a feeling that the murder of the Australian Nguyen Tuong Van at the hands of the “Democractic” Singapore Government and same fate that awaits a majority of the Bali Nine shows the real darker side of Prime Minister John Howard.
“I don’t remember it ever being put to a vote.”
So true Yobbo, but I reckon our Prime Wedgie is rolling around in his sealy posturepedic thinking about it right now.
Reasons for Capital Punishment…
1) I might be able to ‘blood’ myself directly like my mate George.
2) It would really shit the states, because it’s part of their area of responsibility.
3) It would prove how tough I am on ‘terrorism’, again
4) Another chance to trash a legal principal now long held.
Reasons Against Capital Punishment….
1)It would take my cricket and tennis appearances off the front page.
2)It would take my cricket and tennis appearances off the front page.
3)It would take my cricket and tennis appearances off the front page.
4)It would take my cricket and tennis appearances off the front page.
They’re not mutually exclusive, you know.
Yes, that was exactly what I meant. Again, I didn’t realise I’d need to spell it out. Thanks for doing so.
I would assume that it was put to a vote in the nations parliaments.
I think what Howard was saying was that the Iraqi government didn’t hand Saddam over to be torn to pieces by the mob, but instituted due process, as practised in Iraq (not in Australia), to mete out justice.
If you don’t think that this was justice, check out Mohammed at Iraq the Model.
Anonymous Lefy points out that the Howard quote in question actually related to the sentencing of Saddam, not his execution.
Kim on 31 December 2006 at 1:57 am
Yes maam.
Kim on 31 December 2006 at 1:42 am
The PM…insofar as he speaks in international fora on behalf of this country a representative who is bound to put the position which is congruent with the laws of Australia.
This is a novel application of the theory of representative government, responsible ministry and diplomatic nicety. In my naivety I thought that Howard, as PM of AUS, was responsible for the execution of AUS laws.
Apparently Kim insists he now spend his days in office looking abroad, berating other democratic governments who do things differently from us. This might be a good thing to do. But it is definitely not a sovereign democratic, or multicultural, thing to do.
Evidently Kim misunderstands liberal democracy. Or thinks it boild down to a licence to nag the PM.
Kim, I’m sure you know better than that.
That quotation has been attributed to Irish lawyer John Philpot Curran (1750-1817):
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the-condition-upon-which-god-hath-given-liberty/535700.html
and American abolitionist Wendell Phillips (1811-1884:
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1073.html
What has been attributed to Goldwater is:
Wow, the blogosphere’s first comparison between Saddam and Jesus. It’s like some inverted Godwin’s Law.
I don’t know what you’re so upset about – he’ll probably rise from the dead on the third day.
Further, worrying about him becoming a martyr is like worrying about what the cockroach thinks as you spray it with wholesome, chemical death.
All you lawyers out there:
A challenge …… Whilst definitely not wanting further restrictions on freedom of speech (such as it is), what restraints can be put on a Prime Minister – of any political stripe – to preventing her or him behaving like a President-For-Life in a banana republic?
What can be done to impose accountability on that office? (The Hicks case and the South Pacific bully-blunders come immediately to mind). What can be done to enforce thinking-before-speaking so that motor-mouth statements do not further endanger Australians, especially those overseas? (There is the statement under discussion here, of course, but I also have my own thoughts on what may have hastened the Bali bombings).
Will it take a change in the Constitution? Or the Governor-General’s powers? Or the laws on treason and sedition? Or revised regulations for monisterial staffers? What will it take?
1. His boss in the Oval Office can tell him to shut up. This is extremely unlikely to happen, seeing as Ratty is squeaking to the Chimpo hymn-sheet.
2. His party can warn him and if he annoys his party sufficiently they can depose him. This is extremely unlikely because Ratty has already deposed his own party, which is now composed largely of ventriloquists’ dummies. Even a massive act of civil disobedience like the 1970 Moratoria are unlikely to revivify the Liberal Party.
3. The Governor General, using his reserve powers, can withdraw Howard’s commission. It happened once, but it won’t happend again.
4. The voters can defeat him in an election. I doubt that the electorate cares much about Ratty’s interpretation of “due process” in far-off Baghdad.
Katz:
Thanks. That’s a good start.
Restraint and good counsel from within the political parties is now almost impossible.
Elections don’t affect day-to-day affairs and, in any case, the lack of an independent news(??) media has skewed elections to the extent that they have become ineffective. ….. A foreign ruler giving orders seems to be effective – but not necessarily for our benefit.
So? What else?
Could it also be good for the US (and by default us) if Saddam is gone, if he had a bit of old dirt on you?
From Astrolabe an interesting recent post
Everyone wants to talk up what a bastard he was, but at other times and places they were only too willing to shake his hand… not to mention Aussie wheat salesmen.
“The link below show Saddam in an earlier Christmas in happier times (1983) with a close friend
http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/archive/video/rumsfeld_hussein.htm
This meeting occurred 16 months after the crime in Dujail for which he has now been executed”
Under the Westminster system the Prime Minister must have, at all times, the confidence of the Lower House of Parliament. As the Coalition has a majority of thirty in the House of Representatives it would require sixteen members of the Coalition to cross the floor of the House to vote with the Opposition and Independents to remove him. In practical terms for the Prime Minister to behave like a President for Life in a banana republic would alienate enough of the members of the coalition, not least those who harbour leadership ambitions themselves, that if he were to try to do so a majority would form to get a no-confidence motion up.
The Constitution requires that elections be held for the Lower House at least every three years. The High Court is charged with enforcing the Constitution and there is no reason that it would not do so if the Prime Minister attempted to avoid that requirement of the Constitution.
Despite the cynical view that underpins Graeme’s post all members of the federal Parliament actually take their role as elected representatives of the Australian people seriously and it is fantasy-land stuff, and an insult to the Australian society that they represent, to think that they would countenance an Australian President for Life.
What underpins Graeme’s post, of course, is the undemocratic premise that what he thinks should be the policy of the Australian government on any issue must be applied by the Australian government and that any government that deviates from what Graeme wants, and to hell with the other thirteen million punters who comprise the electorate, is guilty of criminality (hence mention of the sedition and treason laws) and should be removed from office by undemocratic means (hence mention of the Governor-General’s powers).
Planet Earth to Graeme: It’s not all about you. There are many Australians out there who, for a variety of reasons, are not unhappy with the Australian government’s position regarding David Hicks. There are, likewise, a lot of Australians who see that the Australian government is doing the best it can with regard to the problems of the Pacific nations in difficult circumstances. If a majority of them think otherwise and the government does not heed their wishes they can and will remove the government at the next election.
I have no problem with you having an intense dislike of the current prime minister Graeme, as I appreciate that he personally, and many of his policies get up the nostrils of many people, including quite a number at LP, but you have done no favours to sensible discourse by your innuendo that he is pursuing any of his policies, however misconceived and unpalatable they may be to you, other than by acceptable democratic means.
Finally, Graeme, do share with us your thoughts on what hastened the Bali bombing. You being all in favour of freedom of speech and all that.
I’m not commenting on David Hicks, or Pacific nations, or whatever. But Australia’s international obligations regarding opposition to the death penalty are quite clear:
http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/death_penalty/aust_policy.php
GregM:
That’s an interesting set of misrepresentations and misinterpretations you have put on what I said
that sort of ad hominum rubbish has never worried me. If, however, you have reasoned arguements to oppose my point of view then please feel free to put them forward.
This is 2007 and your view of Australia’s system of government is woefully out of date. If you really believe that government here still works in the way you said it does (and I really wish it still did too) then please be happy with your reveries; there is nothing anyone can ever do to shake your staunch Faith in this regime ….
Bali bombings? Forget your own attitudes, prejudices, values and upbringing for just a moment and try seeing the situation, prior to the bombings, through the eyes of the terrorists themselves; how would you react to various public announcements made by the leader of that land of infidels down south? …. Mr J W Howard did not speak for a lot of Australians (like me) then and he certainly does not speak for us now.
But you do.
“….try seeing the situation, prior to the bombings, through the eyes of the terrorists themselves…. ”
No need, Graham. Bin Laden made it perfectly clear: Australia was targeted because of its facilitation of independence for East Timor and the reclamation of a small Christian enclave from the dar al islam.
Graham Bell:
It’s not a question for lawyers. It’s a question for citizens.
What you need to do is convince enough people to vote against politicians you dislike, so that those politicians would be turned out of office.
Perhaps if you cannot achieve that, then the people in office have the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the country?
If you’d prefer the political system to work differently, start convincing an electoral majority to change it.
I’ve always thought it was much more likely to be a bit of retrospective credit claiming from UBL. He’s not some omnipotent guru – terrorist groups don’t work like that.
JI is the al Qaida franchise holder in SE Asia, though.
I suspect the motives of those actually involved in the killings, Rob, are both complex and incoherent. I’d also not be surprised if UBL were offering an ex post facto justification. I woudn’t be at all surprised if he didn’t even know about the bombing til it happened.
I don’t know that the franchise lines of accountability are similar to those of say, MacDonalds. It might be a poor analogy for a much more decentralised phenomenon.
I’ve read the suggestion from terrorism experts that Hambali (I think) was the key man, running between AQ and JI. Of course it is quite feasible that the lower level operatives were never clued into the strategy or underlying motivations for the attack which they executed. It is a shadowy network of which we know very little. But the attacks in Madrid, for example, seem to have been carried out for a clear strategic purpose, which they were successful in accomplishing.
This commits the fallacy of post hoc, ergo proter hoc.
The voters of Spain rejected the centrist government because that government lied about its understanding of those responsible for the Madrid bombings, and they were caught lying.
It looks like lies are taken more seriously in Spain than in Australia.
I prefer the alternative explanation, which is that the Spanish were spooked by the attack and voted for the party that wanted to withdraw from the GWOT — as AQ intended.
As a student of electoral behaviour, I can assure you that it’s almost certainly true that neither explanation is correct, no matter which one people might prefer according to their ideological predispositions. Any election sees a multitude of factors and perceptions influencing voting decisions. I doubt that Spanish voters are any different from American or Australian voters in this regard.
It would be much more helpful to see some research explaining why Spain voted as it did rather than to regurgitate metanarratives which almost certainly occlude large parts of the reasons for the voters’ choice.
Maybe, Mark. What’s the Spanish for psephologist? Come to that, what’s the English?
This Madrid and Bali discussion seems to have arisen from a nasty little aside by Graham Bell about responsibility for Bali: “try seeing the situation, prior to the bombings, through the eyes of the terrorists themselves; how would you react to various public announcements made by the leader of that land of infidels down south?”
This is really detestable for two reasons: (1) Graham makes a horrible slur by implication, without spelling out exactly what he means.
(2) It is essentially the same modus operandi as the lunar Right — suggesting that the other side of politics somehow bears responsibility for international terrorism. Like those charming guys at timblair.net who were saying that a Democratic win in congress would be a win for terrorists (and no doubt so would a win by a Democratic presidential candidate in 08).
Can we agree, as a matter of common decency, not to try to pin blame for international terrorism on those folks on the other side of the political aisle?
As regarding Madrid, there was clearly strategic purpose by AQ, as evidenced by the timing of the attack, but whether that was the direct cause of the toppling of the government is a different question entirely, as Mark says.
I couldn’t agree more!
Mark [on Osama bin Laden's claims]:
Yep. that’s fairly standard on these sorts of conflicts. Those who carried out these atrocities would not see such claims as the stealing their reputation by rivals but as support and encouragement from fellow believers in their cause even if they knew those claims were false..
Paulus:
There is a world of difference between a “responsibility” and a “precipitating factor”; perhaps I should have spelt out that difference more clearly for you.
b.t.w., I am happy to give praise, where praise is due, to anyone in public life, regardless their political or social or religious standpoint or how much I personally like or dislike them. Similarly, where blame, condemnation and criticism are due ……
David Jackmanson [at 4:09pm]:
Therein lies the heart of the problem: How do we maintain (and restore) democracy, including ministerial responsibility, without allowing the abuse of power? What can be done to prevent a Prime Minister – of any party – grabbing powers and privleges that go way beyond those of a mere leading minister in an elected, limited-duration government in a parliamentary democracy?
Making sweeping statements that give the rest of the world the false impression that the whole Australian nation is in accord with his own personal will is such an abuse of power …. and one that must be reined in..
You are right about persuading an electorate to change its mind ….. however, the template of what you said can also be fitted over the electoral victories of the Nazis in Germany, Hamas in Palestine, etc. ….. Maintaining (and restoring) democracy is indeed a difficult set of problems.
Graham, I was travelling in Indonesia when the Bali bombings occurred. Whenever I had a conversation with ordinary Indonesians and they found out that I was an Australian the conversation would inevitably turn to East Timor and I was left in no doubt that Indonesians saw that as a national humiliation inflicted upon them by Australia. I was in Bandung on the night when the bombing occurred and what followed was a number of Indonesians telling me, some very crudely, that we had got what was coming to us. I decided that at that time Indonesia was not a place I wanted to be in which was personally devastating as I loved the place, having visited it many times, travelling widely around it and having lived there for a short time.
I see no reason not to believe that Australia’s role in East Timor’s independence was the reason inspiring the Bali bombers as they stated.
However that role was foisted on the Australian government which, like its predecessor, had pursued a policy of recognising Indonesian sovereignty over the country, despite the cause of East Timorese independence having broad support from both the Right and Left in Australian society. It was only after Habibie’s madness in calling a referendum on East Timor’s independence, with its inevitable outcome, that Australian policy changed, as it had to, to supporting and facilitating that independence. The federal government acted with skill in getting Indonesian troops to withdraw without a direct showdown with the Indonesian military with all the catastrophic consequences that would have had to our relationship with Indonesia.
I saw no statements made by the Prime Minister at the time which unavoidably inflamed Indonesian passions. Since you claim there were such statements you should cite them. Alternatively you should argue that Australia should have continued to maintain its policy against East Timorese independence in the face of the referendum result and the massive popular support for that cause in Australia.
You describe my earlier post as being ad hominem. That is the nature of your attack on the current Prime Minister. You assert that he is seeking to act as President for life as in a banana republic but produce no evidence to support your assertion. I have seen no evidence that the Prime Minister has acted in any way other than is, and always has been, allowed to Prime Ministers under the Westminster system, which gives Prime Ministers wide latitude to act. If you have specific examples you should cite them rather than darkly uttering about them as if they were a given.
Finally my apologies for mis-spelling your name in my earlier post.
Excellent points, GregM. It could be added that it was Howard’s (some say most ill-considered) letter to Habibie suggesting 10 years of autonomy then a ballot on independence that triggered Habibie’s intemperate and calamitous decision.
GregM:
The federal government did what? Bollocks! They were the ones who nearly blundered into an unnecessary all-out war with Indonesia. It was more likely that the personal courage and negotiating skills of individuals actually arriving on the ground, like Jim Molem, saved the federal government’s hides.
The East Timor issue was indeed a major factor in stirring up hatred of Australia by many of South East Asia’s Moslems …. but kindly do not ignore the Australian government’s callous attitude to the Palestinians nor its uncritical support for Israel ((no, I’m not anti-Israeli at all)) nor its slavish devotion to the Bush regime in the United States, a regime which appeared to many Moslems to combine the worst of fundamentalist “Christianity” with a delight in re-running the butchery of Moslems in the Crusades. At a time when prudence and firm leadership was essential, the Prime Minister’s unrestrained adulation for the Bush regime and its actions was being published far and wide just about every day. Add to that his own domestic image of being tough on Moslems, regardless of whether that image was accurate or not. Do you believe that what he said was not translated into Indonesian, the various regional languages of Indonesia, Malay, Tamil and Arabic?
Evidence of the present Prime Minister going way beyond any mandate and any wide latitude allowed? Holy fridge-magnet! Look around you! From the mistreatment of asylum-seekers/civilian-invaders (pick whichever term you prefer) to the fake anti-terrorist laws (which repress law-abiding citizens but help terrorists) to the complicity in the cruel-and-unusual punishment of David Hicks to downright abuse of the parliamentary system, habeus corpus and Heaven knows what else.
Your admiration of Mr J Howard is inspiring but woefully mistaken. If Mr J Howard changes his ways and restores democracy and repairs the wreckage of 800 years of our traditinal legal rights and protections I might be tempted to praise him too. Until then, I shall condemn any prime minister, from any political party, who behaves as the present prime minister had done.
Again: Mr Howard DOES NOT speak in my name.
((Apology accepted)).
See you sometime in the real world, Graham.
Graham’s on the money about the causes of Bali – there’s no doubt whatsoever (as people like Mick Keelty have admitted before being censored, and as many nonpartisan foreign policy analysts believe) that our close alignment with the war on terror Bush style has contributed to the motivations for terrorists to attack us.
It should be apparent, that as insightful as GregM’s comments are about the circumstances surrounding Australian involvement in East Timor, that those comments are a distraction from the ostensible topic of discussion.
Note that GregM’s comments concern themselves with how Howard was forced to act on East Timor (i.e., that he and Australia have been wrongly criticised by Indonesians that GregM met during his travels (and by implication the Bali bomb terrorists themselves.))
However, the topic of conversation is in fact about how Indonesians (and by implication the Bali Bomb terrorists) have developed a serious antipathy to Australians. This topic has nothing at all to do with whether these attitudes towards Australians are reasonable or justified.
Which takes us to the important point.
To what extent should our foreign policy be framed, articulated and executed with regard to the opinions of citizens of other nations, some of whom may resolve to commit terrorist acts against Australian interests?
I guess I could never be mistaken as a Howard admirer. However, it would appear to me that if Howard, or any other PM, formulated policy in an attempt to placate uninformed and fanatical opinion elsewhere, then he’d be doing the wider interests of the country a grave disservice.
But by the same token, Howard failed to act with requisite dignity when Keelty pointed out the obvious truth about the relatinship between perceptions of Australian foreign policy and Australian interests’ status as a target for terrorism.
Howard’s response should have been: “Keelty may well be correct. But Australia does not allow fanatics to dictate our foreign policy.”
Thus this episode exposed the smallness, the meanness and the trickiness of Howard.
So what else is new?
“Keelty may well be correct. But Australia does not allow fanatics to dictate our foreign policy.�
Couldn’t agree more. Just imagine how THAT statement would have translated into Indonesian. Particularly given the “improvements” undergone by some statements of the PM by the time they hit the printed page in Indonesia.
Somewhat difficult to imagine for those of us accustomed to Oz newspapers, but not everwhere do newspapers have to (or are expected to) produce an attributable source.
Greg M Howard did say a few moderately inflamatory things after East Timor. Rather than talking about INTERFET as a UN mandated peace-keeping opperation that included several asian nations in addition to Australia Howard adopted the “deputy sheriff” tag and decided that it was a good time to harp on about values.
The Indonesians were going to be rubbed the wrong way by East Timor no matter what we said, but it would have been better for Howard to exhibit a bit more humility and talk about maintaining stability in the region rather than Australian values.
The White House dismisses criticism of the hanging. “He got justice” a spokesman says.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21009572-601,00.html
The bizarreness of an unelected press spokesman in north America so confidently dispensing judgement on the trial and execution of someone in the Middle East … well, it’s just another in a long line of bizarrenesses.
Very impressive website, good job